(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "State of Maryland uniform crime reports"

Maryland 

HV 

6793 

,M3S74 

1982 

Folio 




(i 1982 

UNIFORM 

CRIME 

REPORTS 

" CRIME 

IN 
MARYLAND 

OCT 8 3 REC'D 



STATE OF MARYLAND 
CRIMINAL RECORDS CENTRAL REPOSITORY 



IN MEMORIAM 



Members of the Criminal Records- Central Repository 
express their sympathy to the family of the three Maryland law 
enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty in 1982 



RAYMOND HUBBARD 

Police Officer 
Prince George's County Police Department 



ALLAN JOHNSON 

Corporal 
Prince George's County Police Department 



GARY L. WADE 

Trooper 
Maryland State Police 







1982 

STATE 

OF 

MARYLAND 

UNIFORM 

CRIME 

REPORTS 



HARRY R. HUGHES, Governor 



THOMAS W. SCHMIDT, Secretary, 
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services 



W. T. TRAVERS, JR, Superintendent, 
Maryland State Police 



CRIMINAL RECORDS 
CENTRAL REPOSITORY 



, , LAMONT EDWARDS, Director 



^ ^ £ Ci 3 ^ 



UNIFORM 

CRIME 

REPORTING 

SECTION 



EDGAR WHITEMAN, Administrative Assistant 

VICTOR J. KONSAVAGE, Field Records Representative 

ROBERT J. SPANGLER, Field Records Representative 

ELEANOR D. MERCER, Office Clerk 

BEATRICE SHAPIRO, Steno Clerk 



COLONEL W T TRAVER5. 

SUPCRINIENOCNT 




PIKESVILLE, MARYLAND Z\ZOt 
(30I) ■486 3101 



MARYLAND STATE POLICE 

June 30, 1983 



The Honorable Harry Hughes 
Governor of Maryland 
State House 
Annapolis, Maryland 21404 

Dear Governor Hughes: 

Pursuant to Article 88B, Sections 9 and 10, of the 
Annotated Code of Maryland, the Maryland State Police re- 
spectfully submits the 1982 Uniform Crime Report for your 
information and review. 

The information presented here represents the eighth 
annual report produced by the Maryland Uniform Crime Re- 
porting Program. The statistics presented were compiled 
from monthly reports submitted to Criminal Records-Central 
Repository by law enforcement agencies throughout Maryland. 
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy and com- 
pleteness of the published information. 

This information is presented with the hope that it 
will be of valuable assistance to law enforcement personnel 
and members of the Executive and Legislative branches of 
government. It should be helpful in planning programs and 
legislation to combat criminal activity in Maryland. 

Sincerely, 



Superintendent / 



WTT : imp 



IGaul Enforttmmt (taht nf 1Etl|tra 

Ah a Slani Snfnrrpmptit (Mtitn. -.y funJam«,iJJuif u u 

serve mannina; to iaj-eauara lives ana properlu; to protect the innocent aaainst 
aeceplion, Ine wean aaainsl oppression or intimiaation, ana the peaceful 
against violence or disoraer; ana to respect Ine (constitutional riants of all 
men to lioertu, eauaiitu euia justice. 

Jl tUtii Keep ntu private life unsullied as cut example to all; maintain coura- 
aeous calm in the tace of acuiaery scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and 
he constanllu mindful of the welfare of others. J^onest in thouaht and deed 
in ooth mu personal euid of ficial (if ef ^ will oe exemplaru in ooeuina the laws 
of the land cuid the refutations of mu department. VUhatever Jj See or hear of 
a confidential nature or that is confided to me in mu official capacitu will oe 
hepl ever secret unless revelation is neceSSaru in the performance of mu dutu. 

Jl iHtil never act officiouslu or permit personal feeiinas, preiudiceSy anintos- 
itieS or friendships to influence mu decisions. VUith no compromise for crime 
and with relentless prosecution of criminals, .^ wilt enforce the tcuu courteoustu 
and appropriatetu without fear or favor, mati*:e or itt witt, never emplouina 
unneceSSaru force or violence and never acceptina gratuities. 

It rrrOQtttZ^ the bad^e of my office as a symbol of public faith, and 
.y accept it as a puhtic trust to he hetd so tong as J' cun true to the ethics of 
the police Service. Jj witt constantt^ strive to achieve these objectives and ideats, 
dedicatina musetf oefore \-4od to mu chosen profession . , . taw enj-orcement. 



IV 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 



Special appreciation is extended to Mr, Richard Tamberrino 
of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services 
for his support in coordinating the efforts of the Maryland Department 
of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Maryland Police and Correc- 
tions Training Commission Resource Center, and the Maryland State Police, 

Appreciation is also extended to Mr. John O'Neill, Director, 
of the Maryland State Police Planning and Research Division, Connie 
del Rosario, Maryland State Police Planning and Research Division, 
Mr. Richard Mehling, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correc- 
tional Services, and Mr. Ray Franklin and Staff of the Maryland Police 
and Corrections Training Commission Resource Center, for their assis- 
tance in the preparation of the eighth Annual Report. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Letter of Transmittal iii 

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics iv 

Acknowledgement v 

Introduction 3 

Classification of Offenses 11 

Crime Factors 19 

Crime Index 21 

Maryl and Offense Data 25 

Crime Index Offenses 27 

Murder 37 

Rape 43 

Robbery 49 

Aggravated Assaul t 55 

Breaking or Entering 61 

Larceny 67 

Motor Vehicle Theft 73 

Arson 79 

Index Offense Data 85 

Municipality Crime Rates 121 

Maryl and Arrest Data 1 29 

Violent Crime 131 

Property Cri me 1 32 

Drug Abuse Violation Arrests 132 

Gambl ing Arrests 1 32 

Law Enforcement Employee Data 145 

Law Enforcement Officers Killed 147 

Law Enforcement Officers Assaulted 149 

Law Enforcement Employee Data 165 



VI 



LISTS OF TABLES AND CHARTS 



Crime Index for Maryland 1 

Crime Trends for Maryland 2 

Maryland UCR System Flow 9 

Crime Index Offenses- Volume by Month 30 

Violent Crime-Volume by Month 31 

Property Crime- Volume by Month 32 

Clearance Rates 33 

Stolen Property-Analysis of Value Stolen & Recovered 34 

Value of Property Stolen-Percent of Volume Recovered 35 

Murder- Vol ume by Month 40 

Murder-Distribution by Circumstances 41 

Murder-Distribution by Type of Weapon 42 

Rape- Vol ume by Month 46 

Rape-Percent Distribution by Nature 47 

Robbery- Vol ume by Month 52 

Robbery-Value of Property Stolen 53 

Robbery-Percent Distribution by Type of Weapon 54 

Aggravated Assaul t-Vol ume by Month 58 

Aggravated Assault-Percent Distribution by Type 

of Weapon 59 

Breaking or Entering- Vol ume by Month 64 

Breaking or Entering- Val ue of Property Stolen 65 

Breaking or Entering-Percent Distribution by Nature 66 

Larceny- Vol ume by Month 70 

Larceny-Distribution by Type 71 

Motor Vehicle Theft-Volume by Month 76 

Motor Vehicle Theft-Percent Distribution by Type 77 

Motor Vehicle Theft-Percent of Value Recovered 78 

Arson-Vol ume by flonth 82 

Arson-Distribution by Type of Property 83 

Maryland UCR Crime Index Report by Region, County, 

& Agency 88 

Municipality Crime Index 122 

Arrests- Juvenile 134 

Arrests-Adul t 1 35 

Arrests-Adult vs. Juveniles 136 

Arrests-Drug Abuse Violations-Percent Distribution 

by Type 137 

Arrests-Gambling Violations-Percent Distribution 

by Type 1 38 

Arrest Rates 1 39 

Arrests-Sex & Race of Persons Arrested 141 

Arrests-Age of Persons Arrested 142 

Maryland Arrest Report by Region, County & Agency (See Supplemental Report) 

Police Assaulted-Percent Distribution by Type of Weapon... 150 



Police Assaulted-Percent Distribution by Type of 

Activity 151 

Police Assaulted-Percent Distribution of Injuries 

vs. Non- Injuries 152 

Police Assaulted-Percent Distribution by Time of Day 153 

Law Enforcement Officers Assaulted by Region, County, 

& Agency 154 

Law Enforcement Employee Rates by Region & County 166 

Law Enforcement Employee Data by Region, County, 

& Agency 167 



vn 1 



CRIME INDEX FOR MARYLAND 



OFFENSES 




NUMBER OF 

INDEX 
OFFENSES 


RATE PER 

100,000 

INHABITANTS 


PERCENT 
DISTRIBUTION 


PERCENT 
CLEARED 


MURDER 




431 


10.1 


.2 


81 


FORCIBLE RAPE 




1,596 


*74.8 


.6 


58 


Rape by Force 

Assault to Rape-Attempts 


1,188 
408 








ROBBERY 




15,377 


360.5 


6.0 


25 


Firearm 

Knife or Cutting 

Instrument 
Other Dangerous Weapon 
Strong Arm (Hands, Fists, 
Etc.) 


6,374 

1,246 
1 ,057 

6,690 








AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 




18,845 


441.9 


7.3 


54 


Fi rearm 

Knife or Cutting 

Instrument 
Other Dangerous Wee 
Hands, Fists, Feet, 


ipon 
, Etc. 


4,511 

4,531 
5,997 
3,806 








BREAKING OR ENTERING 


60,547 


1,419.6 


23.6 


17 


Forcible Entry 
Unlawful Entry-No Force 
Attempted- Forcible Entry 


46,610 
7,057 
6,880 








LARCENY-THEFT 




142,903 


3,350.6 


55.7 


18 


$200 and Over 
$50 to $200 
Under $50 




43,394 
48,538 
50,971 








MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 




16,719 


392.0 


6.5 


15 


Autos 

Trucks and Buses 

Other Vehicles 




11,948 
2,060 
2,711 








TOTAL 




256,418 


6,012.2 


**100.0 


21 



*Rate per 100,000 females. 
**Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding, 



CRIME TRENDS FOR MARYLAND 







NUMBER 


PERCENT 


RATE PER 


PERCENT 


INDEX OFFENSES 


YEAR 


OF 


CHANGE 


100,000 


CHANGE 






OFFENSES 


VOLUME 


INHABITANTS 


RATE 




1978 


338 






8.2 






1979 


406 


+20 




9.8 


+20 


MURDER 


1980 


399 


- 2 




9.5 


- 3 




1981 


422 


+ 6 




9.9 


+ 4 




1982 


431 


+ 2 




10.1 


+ 2 




1978 


1,476 






*71.3 






1979 


1,628 


+10 




*78.5 


+10 


FORCIBLE RAPE 


1980 


1,681 


+ 3 




*80.2 


+ 2 




1981 


1,663 


- 1 




*78.1 


- 3 




1982 


1,596 


- 4 




*74.8 


- 4 




1978 


12,828 






309.6 






1979 


13,745 


+ 7 




331.3 


+ 7 


ROBBERY 


1980 


16,462 


+20 




392.7 


+19 




1981 


18,095 


+10 




424.7 


+ 8 




1982 


15,377 


-15 




360.5 


-15 




1978 


15,686 






378.6 






1979 


17,337 


+11 




417.9 


+10 


AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 


1980 


17,182 


- 1 




409.9 


- 2 




1981 


17,691 


+ 3 




415.2 


+ 1 




1982 


18,845 


+ 7 




441.9 


+ 6 




1978 


58,901 




1 


,421.7 






1979 


62,657 


+ 6 


1 


,510.2 


+ 6 


BREAKING OR ENTERING 


1980 


71,130 


+14 


1 


,696.8 


+12 




1981 


70,762 


- 1 


1 


,660.7 


- 2 




1982 


60,547 


-14 


1 


,419.6 


-15 




1978 


134,012 




3 


,234.7 






1979 


145,278 


+ 8 


3 


,501.5 


+ 8 


LARCENY-THEFT 


1980 


152,089 


+ 5 


3 


,628.1 


+ 4 




1981 


152,544 


+ .3 


3 


,580.0 


- 1 




1982 


142,903 


- 6 


3 


,350.6 


- 6 




1978 


17,599 






424.8 






1979 


20,217 


+15 




487.3 


+15 


MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 


1980 


18,885 


- 7 




450.5 


- 8 




1981 


18,486 


- 2 




433.8 


- 4 




1982 


16,719 


-10 




392.0 


-10 




1978 


240,840 




5 


,813.2 






1979 


261,268 


+ 8 


6 


,297.2 


+ 8 


TOTAL 


1980 


277,828 


+ 6 


6 


,627.6 


+ 5 




1981 


279,663 


+ 1 


6 


,563.3 


- 1 




1982 


256,418 


- 8 


6 


,012.2 


- 8 



*Based on Rate per 100,000 Females 



INTRODUCTION 



The Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program is one of the 
steps that have been taken in the establishment of an effective State- 
wide Criminal Justice Information System. This particular phase of 
the CJIS is oriented toward law enforcement and has brought about a 
statewide uniform method of collecting crime statistical data, pro- 
ducing a consolidated annual report concerning crime in Maryland, and 
reporting statewide crime statistics from a single agency to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

National Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

The counterpart of the statewide UCR Program is the National 
UCR Program which is under the direction of the Federal Bureau of In- 
vestigation. This national program is the result of a need for nation- 
wide and uniform compilation of law enforcement statistics. Uniform 
Crime Reports were first collected in 1930 after being developed by 
a committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

Today the lACP continues to serve in an advisory capacity 
to the FBI in its operation of the program. 

Crime statistics voluntarily submitted by individual law 
enforcement agencies from all fifty states are presented annually in 
the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports Publication entitled "Crime in the 
United States". 

In the last several years the FBI has been actively assist- 
ing individual states in the development of statewide programs of 
law enforcement statistics compatible with the National UCR Program. 
In taking advantage of the invaluable assistance provided, Maryland 
has developed its own statewide program for collection of law en- 
forcement statistics. 



Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

The Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program involves the 
uniform compilation, classification, and analysis of crime statistics 
reported by all law enforcement agencies of the state pursuant to 
guides and regulations prescribed by law. 

The responsibility and authority for collection and dissemi- 
nation of UCR data was given to the Maryland Department of Public 
Safety and Correctional Services (State Police) under Article 88B, 
Sections 9 and 10, of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The UCR Program 
became operational January 1, 1975. 



Purpose and Objectives 

In keeping with the recommendation of the President's Com- 
mission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, the 
Maryland UCR Program was planned for eventual growth into a complete 
and integrated offender based Criminal Justice Information System. 
Under this program, each offender arrested in Maryland will be tracked 
through the entire criminal justice system from time of arrest through 
the courts to the correctional system where his exit (Parole, expira- 
tion of sentence, etc.) will be recorded. In this manner, a complete 
"criminal history" on individual offenders will be available for use 
by the police, courts, and correctional agencies in Maryland. In 
addition, statistical data derived from the CJIS Program will provide 
assistance in determining the overall efficiency of the criminal jus- 
tice system in Maryland and will make effective management studies 
possible. 

The fundamental objectives of the Maryland UCR Program 



1. Inform the governor, legislature, other governmental 
officials, and the public as to the nature of the 
crime problem in Maryland - its magnitude and its 
trends. 

2. Provide law enforcement administrators with criminal 
statistics for administrative and operational use. 

3. Determine who commits crimes by age, sex, race and 
other attributes in order to find the proper focus 
for crime prevention and enforcement. 

4. Provide base data and statistics to measure the 
workload and effectiveness of Maryland's Criminal 
Justice System. 

5. Provide base data and statistics to measure the 
effects of prevention and deterrence programs. 

6. Provide base data and statistics for research to 
improve the efficiency, effectiveness and perfor- 
mance of criminal justice agencies. 

7. Provide base data to assist in the assessment of 
social and other causes of crime for the develop- 
ment of theories of criminal behavior. 

8. Provide the FBI with complete UCR data to be in- 
cluded in the national crime reports. 



Development 

Effective September, 1972, the first federal grant was 
awarded to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services 
(State Police) by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to 
provide money to initiate a Statewide Uniform Crime Reporting Program 
in Maryland. A committee for the implementation of this Program was 
then established by State Police. 

The committee made studies of the federal program, as well 
as several state UCR Programs, which were operational at that time. 
Forms, tally books, and the Maryland UCR Manual were developed, printed 
and distributed to all contributing agencies. Questionnaires concern- 
ing each law enforcement agency's record keeping systems were distri- 
buted to determine their capability to fully participate in the State 
Program. 

In September, 1974, an additional grant was awarded to the 
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (State Police) 
by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for the purpose of 
hiring Field Records Representatives to serve as liaison officers 
between the State Program and the contributing law enforcement agen- 
cies. Also, additional clerical support for the State Program was 
provided in the grant. 

During the developmental phase, several workshops were 
held in various parts of the State to present the UCR Program in 
detail to participating agencies. Since that time, supplemental 
workshops have been held as needed. 

During 1975, the first year of operation, the UCR Staff 
concentrated its efforts in assisting requesting law enforcement 
agencies in devising or improving their record keeping systems. 
The UCR Staff continues to keep the agencies trained in UCR and 
to provide assistance where needed. Agencies contributing to the 
UCR Program have increased from 102 agencies in 1975 to 132 in 
1982. The UCR Section collects crime information from these 132 
agencies and publishes quarterly releases reflecting crime trends. 
In addition, this is the eighth annual report produced by the UCR 
Staff containing an in-depth analysis of all information collected 
in the UCR Program. 

During 1982, statistics were collected concerning Battered 
Spouses and a fifth Maryland Battered Spouse Report was produced. 



Reporting Procedures 

Under the Maryland UCR Program, law enforcement agencies 
are required to submit specified Uniform Crime Reports. The necess- 
ary information for each of the required reports is gathered from 
each agency's record of complaints, investigations and arrests. 



For those agencies desiring assistance in developing sound record 
systems, or improving their present system, a copy of the FBI's 
Manual of Police Records has been provided, along with training of 
records personnel by UCR Field Representatives. 

Crime data and information is submitted by state, county, 
and municipal law enforcement agencies on a daily, monthly, and 
annual basis. The daily report consists of the fingerprints of all 
persons arrested, detained, or charged with any crime or offense in 
Maryland. 

On a monthly basis, organized state, municipal, and county 
law enforcement agencies report the number of offenses known to them 
in the following crime categories: 

(1) Criminal Homicide 

(2) Forcible Rape 

(3) Robbery 

(4) Assault 

(5) Breaking or Entering 

(6) Larceny 

(7) Motor Vehicle Theft 

(8) Arson* 

The count of offenses is taken from the record of complaints 
received by law enforcement agencies from victims, witnesses, other 
sources, or discovered by them during their own operation. Complaints 
determined by subsequent investigation to be unfounded are eliminated 
from the count. The resulting number of "actual offenses known to law 
enforcement agencies" in these crime categories is reported without 
regard to whether anyone is arrested, stolen property is recovered, 
local prosecutive policy, or any other consideration. Reported offen- 
ses are recorded by the municipality and county in which they occur. 
Municipal law enforcement agencies report those crimes which are com- 
mitted within the cities; county law enforcement agencies and state 
police report those crimes which occur in the counties outside the 
city. Law enforcement agencies also report on a monthly basis, supple- 
mental offense information such as the value of property stolen and 
recovered as well as circumstances surrounding homicides and other 
pertinent data. Additional monthly reports of persons arrested are 
submitted. These reports provide information concerning the age, sex 
and race of persons arrested by each individual law enforcement agency. 
Also, a police disposition of all juveniles arrested is collected. 

In addition, police employee data is collected on an annual 
basis. 



Verification Process 

An obvious concern in the collection of crime statistics 
for law enforcement agencies throughout the state is the uniformity 

^Monthly arson reports are submitted for law enforcement agencies by 
the State Fire Marshal's Office and designated county agencies. 



i 



and accuracy of data received. Program aides such as guides and in- 
structions do not necessarily guarantee the accuracy and correctness 
of the reports submitted by the contributors. Additional controls, 
therefore, are necessary. 

Each report received by the UCR Section is recorded, examined 
and verified for mathematical accuracy, and possibly more important, 
for reasonableness. The verification process includes numerous checks 
to ensure the validity of information. The elimination of duplication 
of reporting by individual contributors received particular attention. 
Minor errors are corrected by telephone contact with the contributors. 
Substantial variations and errors are adjusted through personal con- 
tacts with individual contributing agencies. The personal contacts are 
invaluable to the accuracy and quality of reporting. Field Representa- 
tives are engaged in a constant educational effort, and as such, provide 
a vital link between the UCR Program and the contributor. 



Population Data 

The computation of crime rates as they appear in this report 
by municipality, county, and state are based on 1982 population esti- 
mates provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation through the co- 
operation and assistance of the United States Bureau of Census. 

Monthly and annual Uniform Crime Reports are received from 
132 municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies in Maryland. 



Limitations of a Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

Information currently collected by the Maryland Program is 
generally the same as that gathered by the National system, and the 
methods of classifying and scoring offenses and arrests are the same. 
This readily enables comparisons with other states and with the nation, 
as a whole. However, there are limitations to the information collec- 
ted which should be clearly understood before any conclusions are drawn 
from the UCR data presented in this report. 

The main goal of the UCR Program is to furnish police adminis- 
trators with a measure of their activities and operational problems as 
indicated by the number of reported offenses, arrests, clearances, and 
the like. 



A first step in the control of crime is to ascertain the 
true dimensions of the problem. However, present statistics as gather- 
ed by the UCR Program measure neither the real incidence of crime nor 
the full amount of economic loss to victims. Information regarding 
number of offenses and clearances is collected only for the eight 
Part I crimes. Value and type of property stolen and recovered data 
is requested only for property stolen in Part I offenses. For Part II 
offenses (except non-aggravated assault), the only information sub- 
mitted is the number of arrests for these crimes according to the age. 



sex, and race of the subject. Consequently, there is no record of the 
actual number of these offenses occurring, nor is there a calculation 
made for property loss, as in cases of vandalism and embezzlement. 

The Crime Index does not explicitly take into account the 
varying degrees of seriousness of its seven components. Each crime 
receives the same weight as it is added to the Index. Consequently, 
an auto theft is counted the same as a murder, and an aggravated 
assault is weighted equally with an attempted breaking or entering. 
Any review of crime must consider the volume, rate, and trend of each 
offense that comprises the Index and the relationship between these 
seven crimes*. 

The Maryland and National Uniform Crime Reporting Programs 
are designed to measure offenses committed and persons arrested, and 
difficulties can arise if this distinction is not kept clearly in 
mind. Crimes relate to events, but arrests relate to persons. Un- 
like traffic violations where there is usually one event, with one 
violation and one offender, a single criminal act can involve several 
crimes, several offenders, and several victims. Relating specific 
crimes to the criminal, or specific offenses to characteristics of 
those arrested, is generally beyond the scope of the present Uniform 
Crime Reporting system. 

Juvenile crime and arrest statistics, because of their 
nature, are another area of misunderstanding. Many juvenile offen- 
ders are handled informally and, as a consequence, inaccurate or 
incomplete recording of the event or action may result. Procedures 
for handling juveniles vary between departments, more so than the 
handling of adult offenders. Furthermore, the degree of juvenile 
involvement in solved offenses is probably seriously misunderstood, 
because juvenile participation in clearances is recorded only when 
juveniles are exclusively involved. When both adults and juveniles 
are subjects in a clearance, the juvenile participation is not re- 
ported. 

The preceding comments should not be viewed as an indict- 
ment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program which, admittedly, is 
designed for the operational requirements of law enforcement agencies. 
While current methods of gathering and reporting crime and arrest data 
provide a less than complete picture of criminality in our society, 
there is at present no other informational system in general use that 
will more adequately perform this task. 



*Arson is not used at this time in computing the Crime Index. 



MARYLAND UCR SYSTEM FLOW 



Field 

Liaison 

Unit 



Law 

Enforcement 

Agency 



No 



UCR 
Returns 




Verified 



^ Correct ^ 



National Copy 



Maryland Copy 




Victim 



FBI 



Key Punch 



Hard Copy 
File 



Attorney 
General 



Governor 



CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES 



Uniformity in reporting under the Maryland System is based 
upon the proper classification of offenses by police. 

The adoption of the Federal System of Uniform Crime Report- 
ing included the utilization of the offense classifications of that 
system. Law enforcement in this state has made accurate application 
of those classifications in the reports submitted to the Maryland 
Uniform Crime Reporting System. 



Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting 

Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting are divided into two 
groupings designated as Part I and Part II offenses. Crime Index 
offenses are included among the Part I offenses. Offense and arrest 
information is reported for the Part I offenses on a monthly basis, 
whereas only arrest information is reported for Part II offenses. 

The Part I offenses are as follows: 

1. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE -- (a) flurder and non-negligent 
manslaughter: All willful felonious homicides as 
distinguished from deaths caused by negligence. 
Excludes attempts to kill, assaults to kill, sui- 
cides, accidental deaths, or justifiable homicides. 
Justifiable homicides are limited to: (1) The 
killing of a person by a law enforcement officer 

in line of duty; and (2) The killing of a person 
in the act of committing a felony by a private 
citizen, (b) Manslaughter by negligence: Any 
death which the police investigation established 
was primarily attributable to gross negligence of 
some individual other than the victim. 

2. FORCIBLE RAPE -- The carnal knowledge of a female, 
forcibly and against her will in the categories of 
rape by force, assault to rape, and attempted rape. 
Excludes statutory offenses (no force used - victim 
under age of consent). 



3. ROBBERY -- Stealing or taking anything of value from 
the care, custody, or control of a person by force or 
by violence or by putting in fear, such as strong-arm 
robbery, stickups, armed robbery, assaults to rob, 
and attempts to rob. 

4. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT -- Assault with intent to kill or 
for the purpose of inflicting severe bodily injury 
by shooting, cutting, stabbing, maiming, poisoning, 
scalding, or by the use of acids, explosives, or 
other means. Excludes simple assaults. 



11 



5. BURGLARY - BREAKING OR ENTERING -- Burglary, house- 
breaking, safecracking, or any breaking or unlawful 
entry of a structure with the intent to commit a 
felony or a theft. Includes attempted forcible entry. 

6. LARCENY-THEFT (except motor vehicle theft) -- The un- 
lawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of 
property from the possession or constructive possession 
of another. Thefts of bicycles, automobile accessories, 
shoplifting, pocket-picking, or any stealing of property 
or article which is not taken by force and violence or 
by fraud. Excludes embezzlement, "con" games, forgery, 
worthless checks, etc. 

7. MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT -- Unlawful taking or stealing or 
attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle 

is a self-propelled vehicle that travels on the surface 
but not on rails. Specifically excluded from this cate- 
gory are motor boats, construction equipment, airplanes, 
and farming equipment. 

8. ARSON -- Include all arrests for violations of state 
laws and municipal ordinances relating to arson and 
attempted arson. Include: any willful or malicious 
burning or attempts to burn, with or without intent 
to defraud, a dwelling house, church, college, jail, 
meeting house, public building or any building, ship 
or other vessel, motor vehicle or aircraft; contents 
of building, personal property of another, goods or 
chattels, crops, trees, fences, gates, grain, vege- 
table products, lumber, woods, cranberry bogs, marshes, 
meadows, etc. 

If personal injury results from the arson, the situa- 
tion would be classified as aggravated assault. In 
the event a death results from arson, the incident 
would be classified as murder. 

The Part II Offenses are as follows: 

9. OTHER ASSAULTS -- Assaults and attempted assaults which 
do not result in serious or aggravated injury to the 
victim are included as other assaults. Examples of 
local jurisdiction offense titles which would be in- 
cluded in "other assaults" are: Simple assault, minor 
assault, assault and battery, injury by culpable negli- 
gence, resisting or obstructing an officer, intimidation, 
coercion, hazing, attempts to commit above. 



12 



10. FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING -- In this class are placed 
all offenses dealing with the making, altering, utter- 
ing or possessing, with intent to defraud, anything 
false in the semblance of that which is true. 

Include: Altering or forging public and other records. 
Making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting bills, notes 
drafts, tickets, checks, credit cards, etc. Forging 
wills, deeds, notes, bonds, seals, trade-marks, etc. 

Counterfeiting coins, plates, bank notes, checks, etc. 

Possessing or uttering forged or counterfeited instru- 
ments. 

Erasures. 

Signing the name of another or fictitious person with 
intent to defraud. 

Using forged labels. 

Possession, manufacture, etc., of counterfeiting appara- 
tus. 

Selling goods with altered, forged, or counterfeited 
trade-marks. 

All attempts to commit the above. 

11. FRAUD -- Fraudulent conversion and obtaining money or 
property by false pretenses. Includes bad checks, 
confidence games, etc., except forgeries and counter- 
feiting. 

12. EMBEZZLEMENT -- Misappropriation or misapplication of 
money or property entrusted to one's care, custody, or 
control . 

13. STOLEN PROPERTY; BUYING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING — In- 
clude in this class all offenses of buying, receiving, 
and possessing stolen property, as well as all attempts 
to commit any of these offenses. 

14. VANDALISM -- Vandalism consists of the willful or mali- 
cious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement 
of any public or private property, real or personal, 
without consent of the owner or person having custody or 
control, by cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, paint- 
ing, drawing, covering with filth, or any other such 
means as may be specified by local law. This offense 
covers a wide range of malicious behavior directed at 
property, such as: cutting auto tires, drawing obscene 



13 



pictures on public restroom walls, smashing windows, 
destroying school records, tipping over gravestones, 
defacing library books, etc. Count all arrests for 
the above, including attempts. 

15. WEAPONS; CARRYING, POSSESSING, ETC. — This class 
deals with weapon offenses, regulatory in nature, 
such as: 

Manufacture, sale, or possession of deadly weapons. 

Carrying deadly weapons, concealed or openly. 

Using, manufacturing, etc., silencers. 

Furnishing deadly weapons to minors. 

Aliens possessing deadly weapons. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

16. PROSTITUTION AND COMMERCIALIZED VICE -- Include in 
this class the sex offenses of a commercialized 
nature, such as: 

Prostitution. 

Keeping bawdy house, disorderly house, or house of 
ill fame. 

Pandering, procuring, transporting, or detaining 
women for immoral purposes, etc. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

17. SEX OFFENSES -- (Except forcible rape and prostitution 
and commercialized vice.) Include offenses against 
chastity, common decency, morals, and the like, such 
as: 

Adultery and fornication. 

Buggery. 

Incest. 

Indecent exposure. 

Indecent liberties. 

Intercourse with an insane, epileptic, or venerally 
diseased person. 



14 



Seduction. 

Sodomy or crime against nature. 

Statutory rape (no force). 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

18. DRUG ABUSE LAWS -- Drug abuse law arrests are re- 
quested on the basis of the narcotics used. Make 
the following subdivisions of drug abuse law arrests: 

Include all arrests for violations of state and local 
laws, specifically those relating to the unlawful 
possession, sale, use, growing, manufacturing, and 
making of narcotic drugs. 

a. Opium or cocaine and their derivatives (morphine, 
heroin, codeine). 

b. Marijuana. 

c. Synthetic narcotics--manufactured narcotics which 
can cause true drug addiction (demerol , metha- 
dones). 

d. Dangerous nonnarcotic drugs (barbiturates, benze- 
drine). 

19. GAMBLING -- All charges which relate to promoting, 
permitting, or engaging in gambling are included in 
this category. To provide a more refined collection 
of gambling arrests, the following breakdown of gamb- 
ling arrests should be furnished. 

a. Bookmaking (horse and sport book). 

b. Numbers and lottery. 

c. All other. 

20. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY AND CHILDREN -- Include 
here all charges of nonsupport and neglect or abuse 
of family and children, such as: 

Desertion, abandonment, or nonsupport of wife or child. 

Neglect or abuse of child. (If injury is serious, 
score as aggravated assault.) 

Nonpayment of alimony. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 



15 



21. DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE -- This class is limited 
to the driving or operating of any vehicle or common 
carrier while drunk or under the influence of liquor 
or narcotics. Include: 

Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. 

Operating an engine, train, streetcar, boat, etc., 
while intoxicated. 

22. LIQUOR LAWS — With the exception of "drunkenness" 
(offense #23), and "driving under the influence" 
(offense #21), liquor law violations, state or local, 
are placed in this class. Include: 

Manufacture, sale, transporting, furnishing, possess- 
ing, etc., intoxicating liquor. 

Maintaining unlawful drinking places. 

Advertising and soliciting orders for intoxicating 
liquor. 

Bootlegging. 

Operating still . 

Furnishing liquor to a minor or intemperate person. 

Using a vehicle for illegal transportation of liquor. 

Drinking on train or public conveyance. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

23. DRUNKENNESS -- Not reported in Maryland. 

24. DISORDERLY CONDUCT -- In this class are placed all 
charges of committing a breach of the peace. 
Include: 

Affray. 

Unlawful assembly. 

Disturbing the peace. 

Disturbing meetings. 

Disorderly conduct in state institutions, at court, 
at fairs, on trains, or public conveyances, etc. 

Disguised and masked persons; night riders. 



16 



Blasphemy, profanity, and obscene language. 

Desecrating flag. 

Refusing to assist an officer. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

25. VAGRANCY — Include: 
Vagrancy. 
Begging. 

Loitering (persons 18 and over). 

26. ALL OTHER OFFENSES -- Include in this class every other 
state or local offense not included in offenses 1 to 25, 
such as: 

Admitting minors to improper places. 

Abduction and compelling to marry. 

Abortion (death resulting from abortion is a homicide, 
offense class la). 

Bigamy and polygamy. 

Blackmail and extortion. 

Bribery. 

Combination in restraint of trade; trusts, monopolies. 

Contempt of court. 

Criminal anarchism. 

Criminal syndicalism. 

Discrimination; unfair competition. 

Kidnapping. 

Marriage within prohibited degrees. 

Offenses contributing to juvenile delinquency (except 
as provided for in offenses 1 to 28 inclusive), such 
as employment of children in immoral vocations or 
practices, admitting minors to improper place, etc. 



17 



Perjury and subornation of perjury. 

Possession, repair, manufacture, etc., of burglar's 
tools. 

Possession or sale of obscene literature, pictures, etc. 

Public nuisances. 

Riot and rout. 

Trespass. 

Unlawfully bringing weapons into prisons or hospitals. 

Unlawfully bringing drugs or liquor into state prisons, 
hospitals, etc.; furnishing to convicts. 

Unlawful disinterment of the dead and violation of 
sepulture. 

Unlawful use, possession, etc., of explosives. 

Violation of state regulatory laws and municipal 
ordinances (this does not include those offenses or 
regulations which belong in the above classes). 

Violation of quarantine. 

All offenses not otherwise classified. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

27. SUSPICION -- While "suspicion" is not an offense, it 
is the ground for many arrests in those jurisdictions 
where the law permits. After examination by the police, 
the prisoner is either formally charged or released. 
Those formally charged are entered in one of the Part I 
or II offense classes. This class is limited to "sus- 
picion" arrests where persons arrested are released by 
the pol ice. 

28. CURFEW AND LOITERING LAWS -- (JUVENILES) — Count all 
arrests made by your department for violation of local 
curfew or loitering ordinances where such laws exist. 

29. RUN-AWAY (JUVENILES) — For the purpose of Uniform Crime 
Reporting Program, report in this category apprehensions 
for protective custody as defined by your local statute. 
Count arrests made by other jurisdictions of run-aways 
from your jurisdiction. Do not include protective cus- 
tody actions with respect to run-aways you take for 
other jurisdictions. 



18 



CRIME FACTORS 



statistics gathered under the Uniform Crime Reporting 
Program are submitted by the law enforcement agencies of Maryland 
and project a statewide view of crime. Awareness of the presence 
of certain crime factors, which may influence the resulting volume 
and type of statistics presented, is necessary if fair and equitable 
conclusions are to be drawn. These crime influencing factors are 
present, to some degree, in every community and their presence 
affects, in varying degrees, the crime experience of that community. 
Attempts at comparison of crime figures between communities should 
not be made without first considering the individual factors present 
in each community. 

Crime, as an outgrowth of society, remains a social prob- 
lem of grave concern and the police are limited in their role to its 
suppression and detection. As stated by the President's Commission 
on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice in their 
report "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society" (1967 - Page 92): 

"But the fact that the police deal daily with crime 
does not mean that they have unlimited power to 
prevent it, or reduce it, or deter it. The police 
did not create and cannot resolve the social condi- 
tions that stimulate crime. They did not start and 
cannot stop the convulsive social changes that are 
taking place in America. They do not enact the laws 
that they are required to enforce, nor do they dis- 
pose of the criminals they arrest. The police are 
only one part of the criminal justice system; the 
criminal justice system is only one part of the 
government; and the government is only one part of 
society. Insofar as crime is a social phenomenon, 
crime prevention is the responsibility of e^/ery part 
of society. The criminal process is limited to case 
by case operations, one criminal or one crime at a 
time. " 

Set forth below are some of the conditions which will, by 
type and volume, affect the crime that occurs from place to place: 

Density and size of the community population and the 
metropolitan area of which it is a part. 

Composition of the population with reference particu- 
larly to age, sex and race. 

Economic status of the population. 

Relative stability of population, including commuters, 
seasonal, and other transient types. 



19 



Climate, including seasonal weather conditions. 

Educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. 

Standards governing appointments to the police force. 

Policies of the prosecuting officials and the courts. 

Attitude of the public toward law enforcement problems. 

The administrative and investigative efficiency of the 
local law enforcement agency, including the degree of 
adherence to crime reporting standards. 

Organization and cooperation of adjoining and overlapping 
police jurisdictions. 



20 



CRIME INDEX 



The tabulations presented in the tables, graphs, and charts 
in this publication indicate the volume and distribution of crime in 
Maryland on the basis of a Crime Index. The crime figures are broken 
down by agency, county, regional, and state totals. 

The total number of criminal acts that occur is unknown, but 
those that are reported to law enforcement provide the first means of 
a count. Not all crimes are of sufficient importance to be significant 
in an index; and not all important crimes occur with enough regularity 
to be meaningful in an index. With these considerations in mind, the 
crimes below were selected as a group to furnish a convenient measure 
of the crime problem: 



Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 

Forcible Rape 

Robbery 

Aggravated Assault 

Breaking or Entering 

Larceny-Theft 

Motor Vehicle Theft 

Arson* 



These offenses were selected because they are serious either by nature 
or frequency of occurrence. 

The crime counts set forth in this publication are actual 
offenses established by police investigation. When police receive a 
complaint of a crime and the follow-up investigation discloses no 
crime occurred, it is "unfounded". 

In 1982, police investigations "unfounded" 9 percent of the 
complaints concerning Index Offenses, ranging from 1 percent in the 
Aggravated Assault category to 18 percent in the Motor Vehicle Theft 
category. When compared to 1981, there were 1 percent "unfounded" 
in the Aggravated Assault category, and 15 percent in the Motor Ve- 
hicle Theft category. 

Calculation of Rates and Trends 

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program provides data for police 
executives to measure local problems. To facilitate this function, it 
is sometimes necessary to convert the data into rates, percentages, or 
trends. Certain guidelines are presented. 



Crime Rates 



One of the most meaningful crime statistics is the Crime 
Rate. This rate is the number of offenses per 100,000 inhabitants. 

*1 982 arson statistics are not included in the Crime Index in this 
report. 

21 



This rate can be calculated regardless of the number of inhabitants 
in your city or county. To compute rates, divide your city's popu- 
lation by 100,000 and divide the number of offenses in each class 
by that answer. The answer is the number of offenses in each class 
per 100,000 and is your Crime Rate for that offense. 

Example : 

a. Population for your jurisdiction 75,000 

b. Number of burglaries for your 
jurisdiction for a year 215 

Divide 75,000 by 100,000 = .75 

Divide 215 by .75 = 286.7 

Your burglary rate: 286.7 per 100,000 inhabitants 

The number of .75 can now be divided into your totals in any offense 
class to produce a Crime Rate for that offense. 

This same computation can be completed to give you arrest rates per 
100,000 inhabitants. 

Clearance Rates 

The percentage of crimes cleared by arrest is obtained by 
dividing the number of offenses cleared by the number of actual 
offenses. This answer is then multiplied by 100. An example of 
this calculation is: 

a. Number of clearances in robbery 38 

b. Number of actual robberies 72 

Divide 38 by 72 = .528 

Multiply: .528 x 100 = 52.8 

Your percentage of clearance in robbery is 52.8%. 



22 



Percent of Change 

The method most commonly used to compare crime statistics 
for the current year with any prior year is the Percent of Change. 
This Percent is calculated by subtracting the prior year's data from 
the current year's data and dividing the resulting figure by the 
prior year's data. The answer is then multiplied by 100. An example 
of this calculation is : 

a. 1982 Murders 431 

b. 1981 Murders 422 



Subtract 422 from 431 = 9 

Divide 9 by 422 = +.021 

Multiply +.021 X 100 = + 2.1 

Your Percent of Change in Murder is +2.1 or 
2 percent when rounded. 



23 



MARYLAND OFFENSE DATA 



CRIME INDEX OFFENSES 

Volume 

A total of 256,418 Crime Index Offenses were reported to 
law enforcement agencies in Maryland during the Calendar Year 1982. 
This represents a decrease of 8 percent when compared to the 1981 
data which was comprised of a total of 279,663 Crime Index Offenses. 

The Crime Index Offenses referred to here represent the 
most common problem to law enforcement. They are serious crimes by 
their nature, volume, or frequency of occurrence. Basically, they 
can be categorized as Violent Crime, which include Murder, Forcible 
Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault, or as Property Crimes which 
include Breaking or Entering, Larceny, and Motor Vehicle Theft. 

An analysis of the total Index by month in 1982 shows that 
August had the highest frequency of occurrence and January had the 
lowest, the same as in 1981. 

Violent Crime 

Violent Crimes involve the element of personal confronta- 
tion between the perpetrator and the victim. Because of their yery 
nature Violent Crimes are considered more serious than Property 
Crimes. These offenses accounted for 14 percent of the total Crime 
Index for 1982, the same as in 1981. 

Analyzing the Violent Crimes by month reveals August had 
the greatest frequency of occurrence, while February had the lowest. 
Compared to 1981, December had the highest frequency and January the 
lowest. 

Property Crime 

The number of Property Crimes reported during 1982 was 
more than 6 times greater than the number of Violent Crimes reported, 
As a group, Property Crimes made up 86 percent of the total Crime 
Index, the same as in 1981. 



of 



A monthly analysis showed August had the highest frequency 
occurrence and January had the lowest, the same as in 1981. 



Crime Rates relate the incidence of crime to the resident 
population. Many other factors which may contribute to the volume 



27 



and type of crime in a given jurisdiction are not incorporated here, 
but are shown in the section entitled "Crime Factors". 

In 1982, the Crime Rate for Maryland was 6,012.2 victims 
for ewery 100,000 population. This represents an 8 percent decrease 
in the Crime Rate when compared to 1981 with 6,563.3 victims per 
100,000 population. 

The 1982 Rate for the Violent Crime group was established 
at 849.9 victims per 100,000 inhabitants, a 4 percent decrease com- 
pared with 1981. The Property Crime group resulted in a Rate of 
5,161.2 per 100,000 inhabitants. This results in a 9 percent de- 
crease when compared to 1981. 



Clearances 

For Uniform Crime Reporting purposes, a crime is cleared 
when police have identified the offender, have evidence to charge 
him and actually take him into custody. Solutions of crimes are 
also recorded in exceptional instances where some element beyond 
police control precludes formal charges against the offender, such 
as the victim's refusal to prosecute or local prosecution is de- 
clined because the subject is being prosecuted elsewhere for a 
crime committed in another jurisdiction. The arrest of one person 
can clear several crimes or several persons may be arrested in the 
process of solving one crime. 

Maryland law enforcement agencies cleared 21 percent of 
all Index Offenses reported to them in 1982, the same as in 1981. 

The Violent Crimes recorded a 42 percent clearance rate 
as compared to 1981 with a 40 percent clearance rate. The Property 
Crime group revealed an 18 percent clearance rate in 1982. During 
1981, police also cleared 18 percent of the Property Crimes. 

Considering individually the 1982 Violent Crime solution 
rate, it was determined that police were successful in solving 81 
percent of the Murders, 58 percent of the Rapes, 25 percent of the 
Robberies, and 54 percent of the Aggravated Assaults. The Property 
Crime solution rates were 17 percent for Breaking or Entering, 18 
percent for Larceny, and 15 percent for Motor Vehicle Theft. 

The relatively high clearance rate for Violent Crimes as 
compared to non-violent Property Crimes is in part attributable to 
the volume difference between the two. Property Crime volume is 
much greater than that of Violent Crime and police investigation 
of Violent Crime is usually more intense. The element of confron- 
tation between victim and perpetrator, as well as witness identi- 
fication of the perpetrator, also contributes to this higher rate 
of sol ution. 



28 



Juvenile Clearances 

In 1982, the clearance involvement of those persons under 
the age of 18 represented 24 percent of all cases cleared, compared 
to 27 percent in 1981 . 

The juvenile clearances for the Violent Crime category 
represented 17 percent of those cases solved, the same as in 1981, 
with 7 percent clearances in Murder cases, 11 percent clearances in 
Rape cases, 23 percent clearances in Robbery cases, and 15 percent 
clearances in Aggravated Assault cases. 

The Property Crime clearances involving juveniles, repre- 
sented 28 percent of those cases solved, as compared to 30 percent 
in 1981, with 31 percent in Breaking or Entering cases, 26 percent 
in Larceny cases, and 25 percent in Motor Vehicle Theft cases. 



Stolen Property Value 

The total value of Property Stolen during 1982 was $147, 
629,064 which resulted in a 10 percent decrease over 1981, Recover- 
ed Property amounted to $44,090,071 which is 30 percent of the tota' 
stolen, resulting in a $103,538,993 property loss to victims in the 
State of Maryland during 1982. This property loss results in a 14 
percent decrease when compared to the property loss in 1981. 



29 



CRIME INDEX OFFENSES 

VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 









Average 






36,000- 


■* 


1982 




34,000- 


- 






32,000- 


- 






30,000- 


- 






28,000- 


- 






26,000- 


- 






24,000- 
22,000- 


- 


^*"--m, 


^-^^^^^^V^— N. 


20,000- 


" 


//^ 




18,000- 


" 4 


<y 




16,000- 


- 







JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



30 



VIOLENT CRIME 

VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 







^^^— 5 Yr. Average 


4,000- 


— 


... 1982 


3,800- 


- 




3,600- 


- 




3,400- 


.1. 


/ 
/ 


3,200- 
3,000- 


- 




2,800- 


" 


2,600- 


- 


/ 


2,400- 


- 


X/^^"^^ 


2,200- 


- 




2,000- 


- 





JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



31 



PROPERTY CRIME 

VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 











Average 


24,000 - 


" 




— " 1982 




23,000- 


- 








22,000 - 


- 






y. 


21,000 - 


- 






/V'A 


20,000 - 


■" 






// \V-x 


19,000- 


_ 






y/ \ x^ 


18,000- 


- 




/f^ 


O "■*--'■ 


17,000- 






f 1 
/ / 

/ / 




16,000- 




> 


/ / 




15,000- 


— 


/ 






14,000- 


- 









JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



32 



CLEARANCE RATES 



,,,„„ NUMBER RATE PERCENT 

OFFENSES YEAR OF NUMBER OF CHANGE 

OFFENSES CLEARED CLEARANCE OF RATE 



MURDER 1981 422 342 81 

81 



FORCIBLE RAPE 1981 1,663 965 58 

58 



1981 


422 


342 


1982 


431 


350 


1981 


1,663 


965 


1982 


1,596 


924 


1981 


18,095 


4,150 


1982 


15,377 


3,840 


1981 


17,691 


9,653 


1982 


18,845 


10,213 



ROBBERY 1981 18,095 4,150 23 

25 +9 



AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 1981 17,691 9,653 55 

54 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 1981 70,762 12,372 17 

1982 60,547 10,460 17 



LARCENY-THEFT 1981 152,544 27,257 1 

1982 142,903 25,775 1- 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 1981 18,486 3,055 17 

1982 16,719 2,550 15 



VIOLENT CRIME 


1981 


37,871 


15,110 


40 






1982 


36,249 


15,327 


42 


+5 


PROPERTY CRIME 


1981 


241,792 


42,684 


18 






1982 


220,169 


38,785 


18 





TOTAL 


1981 


279,663 


57,794 


21 






1982 


256,418 


54,112 


21 






33 



STOLEN PROPERTY 

ANALYSIS OF VALUE STOLEN AND RECOVERED 1982 



VALUE OF VALUE OF PERCENT OF 

TYPE OF PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY VALUE 

STOLEN RECOVERED RECOVERED 



Currency, Notes, Etc. $ 10,755,129 898,822 



Jewelry and Precious 


23,192,829 


1,704,100 - 


It 


Metals 








Clothing and Furs 


4,955,599 


634,295 


13% 


Locally Stolen Motor 


52,150,316 


34,529,112 


66% 


Vehicles 








Office Equipment 


1,924,501 


251,355 


13% 


Televisions, Radios, / 


14,085,322 


966,824 


7% 


Cameras, Etc. 








Fi rearms 


1,342,182 


146,712 


11% 


Household Goods 


3,218,416 


270,213 


8% 


Consumable Goods 


2,111,969 


260,368 


12% 


Livestock 


86,036 


20,082 


23% 


Miscellaneous -- 


33,806,763 


4,408,186 


13% 


nOTAL 


$147,629,064 


$44,090,071 


30% 



''Breakdown does not equal total due to rounding. 



34 



VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN 

PERCENT OF VOLUME RECOVERED 
1982 




Recovered 



Not Recovered 





5 Yr. 
Total 


1982 


1981 


1980 


1979 


1978 


Stolen 


680 
Million 


148 
Million 


164 
Million 


158 
Million 


117 
Mi 1 1 i on 


93 
Million 


Recovered 


198 
Million 


44 
Mi 11 ion 


44 
Million 


39 
Million 


40 
Mil 1 ion 


31 
Million 



35 



MURDER 




MURDER 



Murder is defined as the willful (nonnegl i gent) killing of 
one human being by another. As a general rule, any death due to a 
fight, argument, quarrel, assault, or commission of a crime is counted 
as a Murder. This offense is scored on the basis of police investiga- 
tion without regard to the findings of a court or jury or the decision 
of a prosecutor. Assaults to Murder and Attempted Murders are counted 
as Aggravated Assaults. Suicide, accidental deaths and justifiable 
homicides are also excluded. 



Volume 

In 1982, a total of 431 Murders were reported to law enforce- 
ment agencies in Maryland. This compares to 422 Murders in 1981 and 
results in an increase of 2 percent. Murder comprises 1 percent of 
the total Violent Crime category and .2 percent of the total Crime Index, 



Rate 

In 1982 there were 10.1 victims of Murder for every 100,000 
residents in Maryland. During 1981, we reported a Murder Rate of 9.9 
victims per 100,000 population resulting in a 2 percent increase. 



Nature 

In 1982, firearms predominated as the weapon most often used 
in the commission of Murder in Maryland, representing 60 percent of 
the total. This compares to 59 percent of the total during 1981. 46 
percent of the total Murders were committed with handguns, while 21 
percent were committed with a knife or cutting instrument, 9 percent 
with a shotgun, 6 percent with personal weapons, and 18 percent with 
other dangerous weapons. In 1981, 44 percent of the total Murders 
were committed with a knife or cutting instrument, 10 percent with 
a shotgun, 4 percent with personal weapons and 18 percent with other 
dangerous weapons. 

The largest number of Murders (81) occurred in the 20-24 
age group, which comprised 19 percent of the total. In 1981, the 
largest number of Murders (81) occurred in the 20-24 age group, 
which comprised 19 percent of the total. 

Murders, as a result of Robberies, accounted for 12 percent 
of the total Murders; narcotic related Murders also represented 12 
percent. In 49 percent of the Murders, the circumstances were not 
determined at the time of the report. In 1981, Murders, as a result 
of robberies, accounted for 19 percent of the total Murders, while 
narcotic related Murders represented 12 percent. In 40 percent of 
the Murders, the circumstances were not determined at the time of 
the report. 



38 



Clearances 

In 1982, 81 percent of all Murders were cleared with 7 percent 
of the total solved involving juvenile arrests. This compares to 1981 
with an 81 percent clearance rate and 7 percent of the total cleared 
involving juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

A total of 425 persons were arrested in Maryland for Murder 
during 1982. This represents a 14 percent decrease when compared to 
1981, with a total of 492 persons arrested for Murder. 

Of this total, 91 percent were males and 9 percent female. 72 
percent of the total were black while 28 percent were white. 90 percent 
were adults and 10 percent were juveniles. 



39 



MURDER 

VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 




JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULV AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



40 



MURDER 

DISTRIBUTION BY CIRCUMSTANCE 













NUMBER OF 
MURDERS 


PERCENT 
DISTRIBUTION 


RAPE 










11 


2.6% 


ROBBERY 










53 


12.3% 


BURGLARY 










4 


.9% 


ARSON 










5 


1.2% 


PROSTITUTION, 


COMMERCIALIZED 


VICE 


1 


.2% 


OTHER SEX 


OFFENSES 






2 


.5% 


NARCOTIC 


DRUG 


LAWS 






54 


12.5% 


LOVER'S TRIANGLE 






14 


3.3% 


BRAWL DUE 


TO 


THE INFLUENCE 


OF 


ALCOHOL 


10 


2.3% 


CHILD KILLED 


BY BABYSITTER 






2 


.5% 


INSTITUTIONAL 


KILLINGS 






5 


1.2% 


ARGUMENTS 










28 


6.5% 


OTHER 










29 


6.7% 


UNKNOWN 










213 


49.4% 


TOTAL 










431 


*100.0% 



Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding. 



41 



MURDER 

DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF WEAPON 



1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 ^„![™ ^dISTR?B, 



HANDGUN 156 193 187 186 200 922 46.2% 

BLUNT OBJECT 10 12 17 22 20 81 4.1% 

RIFLE 5 11 25 19 20 80 4.0% 

SHOTGUN 24 27 21 43 37 152 7.5% 

KNIFE 94 114 108 97 89 502 25.2% 

PERSONAL 33 20 18 18 27 116 5.8% 

ALL OTHERS 16 29 23 37 38 143 7.2% 

TOTAL 338 406 399 422 431 1,996 *100.0% 

^Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding. 



42 



RAPE 



i 
i 




RAPE 



Rape is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and 
against her will. In Uniform Crime Reporting, Rape is divided into 
two categories: (1) Rape by Force; (2) Attempt to commit Forcible 
Rape. Statutory Rape or the carnal knowledge of a female with no 
force used and where the victim is under the legal age of consent, 
as well as other sex offenses, are not included in this category. 



Volume 

During 1982, 1,595 Forcible Rapes were reported to Maryland 
law enforcement agencies. This compares to 1,663 Rapes during 1981 
and results in a 4 percent decrease. 

Rape accounted for 4 percent of the Violent Crimes and .6 
percent of the total Crime Index. 

The month of August showed the highest frequency of Rapes, 
while January showed the lowest. In 1981, July had the highest fre- 
quency and April showed the lowest. 



Rate 

A Crime Rate, in its proper perspective, is a victim risk 
rate since it equates the number of crimes per unit of population. 
In 1982, 74.8 out of ewery 100,000 females in Maryland were reported 
Rape victims, as compared to 1981, when 78.1 per 100,000 female popu- 
lation were reported victims. This results in a 4 percent decrease 
in the rate of Forcible Rapes. 



Nature 

During 1982, 74 percent of all Rapes were actual Rapes by 
Force while 26 percent were attempts or assaults to commit Forcible 
Rape. In 1981, 78 percent of all Rapes were actual Rapes by Force 
while 22 percent were attempts or assaults to commit Forcible Rape. 



Clearances 

In Calendar Year 1982, 58 percent of the total number of 
Rapes were cleared by arrest with 11 percent of the total solved 
involving juvenile arrests. In 1981, 58 percent of the total Rapes 
were cleared and 7 percent of the total cleared involved juveniles. 



44 



Persons Arrested 

In 1982, there were 939 persons arrested for Rape in Maryland, 
In comparison to 1981, with 919, there was a 2 percent increase in the 
number of arrests. 

80 percent of the total number were 18 years of age or older, 
while the remaining 20 percent were juveniles. 65 percent of the total 
were black and 35 percent white. 



45 



RAPE 



VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 




JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



46 



RAPE 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY NATURE 
1982 



74.4% 




Force 



Attempt 





5 Yr. 
Total 


1982 


1981 


1980 


1979 


1978 


Force 


6,204 


1,188 


1,297 


1,307 


1 ,243 


1 ,169 


Attempt 


1,840 


408 


365 


374 


385 


^307 



47 



ROBBERY 




ROBBERY 



Robbery is defined as the taking, or attempting to take, 
anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or 
persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting 
the victim in fear. The element of personal confrontation is always 
present in this crime. Under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 
all attempts to commit Robbery are included. Robberies are reported 
in four general categories -- firearms; knife or cutting instrument; 
other dangerous weapons; and hands, fists, feet, etc. As a general 
rule. Robbery differs from Larceny in that it is aggravated by the 
element of force or threat of force. 

Robbery, as a crime of Violence, has a serious impact on 
the victim. In many instances serious injury results. Oftentime, 
with or without physical injury, the victim suffers mental anguish. 
Such damage is immeasurable. 



Volume 

During 1982, there were 15,377 actual Robbery offenses 
reported to Maryland law enforcement agencies. In 1981, there 
were 18,095 Robberies, which results in a decrease of 15 percent. 

Robbery accounted for 42 percent of the Violent Crime 
category and 6 percent of the total Crime Index. 

A monthly comparison reveals that December had the high- 
est frequency of Robberies, while May had the lowest frequency. 
In 1981, January had the highest frequency and April had the lowest 



Rate 

The 1982 Robbery Rate was 360.5 per 100,000 inhabitants 
This compares to a rate of 424.7 per 100,000 population in 1981, 
and results in a 15 percent decrease in the Robbery Rate. 



Nature 

During 1982, 64 percent of the Robberies were committed 
in the street, while only .9 percent were Bank Robberies. This 
compares to 1981 when 59.7 percent were committed in the street 
and 1.5 percent were Bank Robberies. 

Bank Robberies accounted for the highest average value 
loss, $4,877 in 1982. The average value loss for total Robberies 
was $423. 



50 



Armed perpetrators were responsible for 56.5 percent of 
the Robbery offenses while 43.5 percent were muggings or strong- 
armed Robberies. This compares to 1981, when 58.0 percent involved 
Armed Robberies and 42.0 percent were strong-arm. 

An analysis of Armed Robbery by type of weapon indicates 
that the use of firearms was predominate, accounting for 73.4 per- 
cent of all Armed Robberies. Knives or cutting instruments made up 
14.3 percent while other dangerous weapons accounted for 12.3 per- 
cent of all Armed Robberies. In 1981, 76.2 percent of the total 
Armed Robberies were committed with firearms, 12.8 percent with 
knives or cutting instruments, and 10.9 percent with other danger- 
ous weapons. 



Clearances 

In 1982, 25 percent of the total number of Robberies were 
cleared by arrest with 23 percent of the total solved involving a 
juvenile arrest. In 1981, 23 percent of the Robberies were cleared 
and 24 percent of those involved juveniles. 

25 percent of the Armed Robberies were cleared with 12 
percent of the total solved involving a juvenile arrest. 25 percent 
of the strong-arm Robberies recorded a clearance, while 39 percent 
of the total involved juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

4,988 persons were arrested for Robbery in Maryland during 
1982. In comparison with 1981, and a total of 5,403 persons arrested, 
there was an 8 percent decrease in Robbery arrests. 

64 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 
Robbery were adults, while the remaining 36 percent were juveniles. 

81 percent of the total persons arrested were black and 
19 percent were white. 96 percent were males and 4 percent females. 



51 



ROBBERY 

VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 



2,000- 


- 










1,900- 


- 










1,800- 
1,700- 


- 








* 

/ 

1 


1,600- 










/ 


1,500- 


- 








1/ 


1,400- 
1,300- 


. 


A 


/"v^ 


/ 


U^ 


1, ZOO- 
MOO - 
1,000- 


- 




/y 







JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



52 



ROBBERY 

VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN 1982 



n.cc,.,r,j^nf, ^^^^^^ PERCENT TOTAL AVERAGE 
CLASSIFICATION qF OF VALUES VALUES 
OFFENSES DISTRIB. (DOLLARS) (DOLLARS) 



Highway 9,853 64.1% $2,482,902 $ 252 

Commercial House 1,671 10.9% 1,079,689 646 

Service Station 383 2.5% 142,560 372 

Convenience Store 436 2.8% 451,133 1,035 

Residence 1,061 6.9% 826,077 779 

Bank 141 .9% 687,591 4,877 

Miscellaneous 1,832 11.9% 841,042 459 

TOTAL 15,377 100.0% $6,510,994 $ 423 



53 



ROBBERY 

DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF WEAPON 
1982 




rearm 



43.5% 



1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 



Firearm 


31,072 


6,374 


7,998 


6,726 


5,187 


4,787 


Knife 


6,020 


1,246 


1,347 


1,234 


1,162 


1,031 


Strong 
Arm 


34,311 


6,690 


7,602 


7,451 


6,455 


6,103 


Other 


5,104 


1,067 


1,148 


1,041 


941 


907 



54 



AGGRAVATED 
ASSAULT 




AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 



Aggravated Assault, as defined under the Maryland Uniform 
Crime Reporting Program, is an unlawful attack by one person upon 
another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily 
injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of 
a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. 
Attempts are included since it is not necessary that any injury re- 
sult when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which would result 
in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed. 
Also included in this category are all attempted Murders. 

Any assault in which hands, fists and feet are used and 
no serious injury to the victim results, is classified as a simple 
assault which falls into the Part II category, and is not included 
as a Crime Index Offense. 



Volume 

During 1982, a total of 18,845 Aggravated Assaults were 
reported to Maryland law enforcement agencies. In comparison, there 
were 17,691 Aggravated Assaults in 1981, resulting in a 7 percent 
increase. 

Aggravated Assault made up 52 percent of the Violent Crime 
category and 7 percent of the total Crime Index. 

The month of August had the highest frequency of Aggrava- 
ted Assaults occurring while January had the lowest. During 1981, 
July showed the highest frequency and February showed the lowest. 



Rate 

For each 100,000 persons in Maryland during 1982, there 
were 441.9 victims of Aggravated Assault. During 1981, there were 
415.2 Aggravated Assault victims per 100,000 population. A com- 
parison of the two years results in a 6 percent increase. 



Nature 

In 1982, 23.9 percent of the Aggravated Assaults were 
committed with the use of a firearm. A knife or cutting instrument 
was used in 24.0 percent of Assaults, and 31.8 percent were com- 
mitted with other dangerous weapons. The remaining 20.2 percent 
were committed with personal weapons such as hands, fists, feet, 
etc. These figures compare to 1981, when 25.4 percent of Aggrava- 
ted Assaults were committed with a firearm, 23.8 percent with a 



56 



knife or cutting instrument, 31.9 percent with other dangerous weapons 
and 18. 9 percent with personal weapons. 



Clearances 

54 percent of the total number of Aggravated Assaults were 
cleared by arrest with 15 percent of the total clearances involving 
juveniles. As compared to 1981, 55 percent of the total were cleared, 
and of those cleared, 15 percent involved juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

There were 6,515 arrests for Aggravated Assault in Maryland 
during 1982. This results in a 16 percent increase when compared to 
1981, with 5,606 persons arrested. 

79 percent of the total number of persons arrested for Aggra- 
vated Assault were adults, while 21 percent were juveniles. 46 percent 
of the total were black and 54 percent white. 85 percent of the total 
were males, while 15 percent were females. 



57 



2,000 



AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 



VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 




1,000 



JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



58 



AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 

DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF WEAPON 
1982 



24.0% 



23.9% 



20.2% 




Firearm 



Knife 



Other 



1982 1981 



Hands, etc 
1980 1979 1978 



^irearni 


19,798 


4,511 


4,498 


3,791 


3,745 


3,252 


Knife 


21,753 


4,531 


4,204 


4,108 


4,542 


4,378 


Other 


28,327 


5,997 


5,551 


5,779 


5,532 


5,268 


Hands , 
etc. 


16,853 


3,805 


3,338 


3,504 


3,417 


2,788 



59 



BREAKING OR 
ENTERING 




BREAKING OR ENTERING 



Breaking or Entering is defined as the unlawful entry of a 
structure to commit a felony or a theft. 

Data collection for this offense is further categorized as 
to forcible entries, unlawful entries where no force is used, and 
attempted forcible entries. 

As with other Property Crimes, the motive of personal gain 
coupled with the element of opportunity, results in the commission 
of this offense by both the amateur and the professional perpetrator. 
Only the absence of confrontation and use of force separate this crime 
from Robbery of the Violent Crime group. 

The volume of this offense presents the police with a seri- 
ous enforcement problem, made more difficult in many areas, by the 
lack of sufficient personnel to act as a deterrent and to provide 
successful solutions to these crimes. 



Volume 

In 1982, a total of 60,547 Breaking or Enterings were re- 
ported to Maryland law enforcement agencies. In comparison, there 
were 70,762 Breaking or Enterings in 1981 resulting in a 14 percent 
decrease. 

Breaking or Enterings made up 28 percent of the Property 
Crime category and 24 percent of the total Crime Index. 

A monthly analysis reveals that August had the highest 
frequency of occurrence while May had the lowest frequency. In 
1981, January showed the highest frequency and May showed the low- 
est. 



Rate 

The Breaking or Entering Rate was 1,419.6 per 100,000 
inhabitants of Maryland during 1982. In 1981, there were 1,660.7 
Breaking or Entering victims per 100,000 population. In comparison, 
this results in a 15 percent decrease in the Breaking or Entering 
Rate. 



Nature 

In 1982, 76.9 percent of the Breaking or Enterings invol- 
ved forcible entry, 11.7 percent were unlawful entries (without 
force), and 11.4 percent were recorded as attempted forcible entries 



62 



In comparison, 78.2 percent were forcible entry, 11.7 percent were 
unlawful entries, and 10.1 percent were attempted forcible entries 
during 1981 . 

66.2 percent of all Breaking or Enterings were committed 
in a residence, while 33,8 percent were committed in a nonresidence 
structure. During 1981, 67.4 percent were committed in a residence, 
while 32.6 percent were committed in a nonresidence structure. 

The average dollar value loss for Breaking or Entering was 
$797. This compares to 1981 with $926, and results in a 14 percent 
decrease. 



Clearances 

In 1982, law enforcement agencies in Maryland were success- 
ful in clearing 17 percent of the total Breaking or Entering Offenses 
of which 31 percent involved juveniles. During 1981, police cleared 
17 percent of the total Breaking or Enterings, with 33 percent of 
that number involving juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

In 1982, there were 12,239 persons arrested in Maryland for 
Breaking or Entering. When compared to 1981, with 14,321 arrests, 
there is a 15 percent decrease in Breaking or Entering arrests. 

56 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 
Breaking or Entering were adults, while 44 percent were juveniles. 
51 percent of the total were white, and 49 percent were black. 94 
percent of the total were males, while the remaining 6 percent were 
females. 



63 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 



VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 













5 Yr 


Average 




9,000 - 


„ 
















~ 


" 


1982 






8,500 - 


- 














8,000 - 


- 














7,500 - 


- 














7,000 - 


- 














6,500 - 


- 














6,000 - 


- 












>/N. y' 


5,500 - 
5,000 - 
4,500 - 


- 


:=- 


<r 


^^ 


^ 


"-.-" 


/^"--./ 


4,000 - 


- 















JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



64 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 

VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN 1982 



NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL AVERAGE 

CLASSIFICATION OF OF VALUES VALUES 

OFFENSES DISTRIB. (DOLLARS) (DOLLARS) 



RESIDENCE TOTAL 40,060 66.2% $30,901,976 $ 771 

Night 13,069 21.6% 8,740,521 669 

Day 14,970 24.7% 13,046,460 872 

Unknown 12,021 19.9% 9,114,995 758 

NONRESIDENCE TOTAL 20,487 33.8% 17,343,381 847 

Night 8,446 13.9% 4,651,709 551 

Day 4,393 7.3% 3,115,021 709 

Unknown 7,648 12.6% 9,581,651 1,253 

GRAND TOTAL 60,547 *100.0% *$48,250,358 $ 797 

*Total does not equal 100% due to rounding. 



65 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE 
1982 



76.9 



11.7% 



11.4% 




Forcible 



1982 



1981 1980 1979 



1978 



Forcible 


249,621 


46,610 


55,362 


54,879 


48,036 


44,734 


No Force 


41 ,219 


7,057 


8,246 


9,357 


8,366 


8,193 


Attempt 


33,157 


6,880 


7,154 


6,894 


6,255 


5,974 



66 



LARCENY 




LARCENY 



Larceny- Theft is defined as the unlawful taking, carrying, 
leading, or riding away of property from the possession or construc- 
tive possession of another. It includes such crimes as pocket-pick- 
ing, shoplifting, purse snatching, thefts from autos, thefts of auto 
parts and accessories, bicycle theft, etc. In the UCR Program, this 
category does not include embezzlement, fraud, forgery, and worthless 
checks. Motor Vehicle Theft, being a special problem, is a separate 
Crime Index Offense and is not reported in the Larceny- Theft category. 

Larceny Offenses cleared by police arrest are dramatically 
affected by the nature of the crime. As with other Property Crimes, 
opportunity and stealth, working in favor of the perpetrator and 
against police detection, reduce solutions for this offense. 

As with other Offenses against Property, Larceny is pri- 
marily a crime of opportunity. Types of Larcenies will differ in 
volume depending upon the opportunity for theft offered in a given 
area. 

The average dollar loss in this category was $300 as com- 
pared to 1981, with an average loss of $288, and results in a 4 per- 
cent increase. A very small portion of goods stolen are recovered 
and returned to victims, due to a low clearance rate and lack of 
specific identification characteristics on such property. In addi- 
tion, many offenses in this category, particularly where the value 
of goods stolen is small, never come to police attention. 



Volume 

In 1982, there were 142,903 Offenses of Larceny-Theft re- 
ported as compared to 1981 with 152,544 Offenses and a 6 percent 
decrease. Larceny-Theft makes up 56 percent of the Crime Index 
total and 65 percent of the Property Crime total. 

August shows the highest frequency of Larceny Offenses in 
a monthly analysis, while January shows the lowest, the same as in 
1981. 



Rate 

The Larceny Crime Rate was 3,350.6 per 100,000 inhabitants 
of Maryland during 1982. In 1981, there were 3,580,0 Larcenies per 
100,000 population, resulting in a 6 -percent decrease in the Larceny 
Rate. 



68 



Nature 

Larcenies of Auto Parts and Accessories recorded the high- 
est percentage with 26.3 percent of the total Larcenies reported in 
this category. Pocket-Picking had the lowest frequency with a .6 
percent of the total. In 1981, Larcenies of Auto Parts and Accesso- 
ries had the highest frequency with a 25.6 percent of the total, while 
Pocket-Picking had the lowest frequency with .8 percent. 



Clearances 

In 1982, law enforcement agencies cleared 18 percent of the 
total Larceny-Theft Offenses, of which 27 percent of the total clear- 
ances involved juveniles. This demonstrates the involvement of the 
young age group in the Larceny-Theft category. In 1981, police cleared 
18 percent of the total Larceny Offenses with 29 percent of that number 
involving a juvenile arrest. 



Persons Arrested 

There were 28,433 persons arrested for Larceny in Maryland 
during 1982. In comparison to 1981, with 30,528 Larceny arrests, 
there was a 7 percent decrease in the number of persons arrested. 

33 percent of the total persons arrested for Larceny were 
under 18 years of age. However, when individuals under the age of 21 
were considered, the percentage rose to 50 percent of the total. 

Females comprised 24 percent of all arrests for Larceny, 
and had a greater involvement in this offense than in any of the 
other Crime Index Offenses. 

56 percent of all persons arrested for Larceny were black, 
43 percent were white, and 1 percent of other races. 



69 



LARCENY 

VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 




7,000' 



JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



70 



LARCENY 

VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN 1982 



CLASSIFICATION 



NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL AVERAGE 

OF OF VALUES VALUES 

OFFENSES DISTRIB. (DOLLARS) (DOLLARS 



Pocket-Picking 

Purse-Snatching 

Shoplifting 

From Autos 

Auto Parts & Access, 

Bicycles 



853 



6% $ 113,286 $ 133 



2,484 1.7% 



311,309 



15,997 11.2% 1,947,817 

22,728 15.9% 7,944,511 

37,559 26.3% 6,447,271 

9,482 6.6% 1,406,785 



TOTAL 



125 
122 
349 
172 
148 



From Buildings 25,440 17.8% 11,405,214 448 

Coin Operated Machines 1,987 1.4% 212,171 107 

All Others 26,373 18.5% 13,150,318 499 



142,903 100.0% *$42,938,683 $ 300 



*Total does not equal breakdown due to rounding. 



71 



MOTOR VEHICLE 

THEFT 




MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 



Motor Vehicle Theft is defined as the theft or attempted 
theft of a motor vehicle. This definition excludes taking a motor 
vehicle for temporary use, such as a family situation or unauthori- 
zed use by others having lawful access to the vehicle, such as chauf- 
feurs, etc. 

The crime of Motor Vehicle Theft has been labeled primarily 
as a crime of opportunity. The youthful offender finds the motor ve- 
hicle easily accessible for transportation for any purpose. The re- 
maining thefts are mainly for the purpose of resale, theft of parts, 
and for use in committing other crimes. 



Volume 

In 1982, there were 16,719 Motor Vehicle Thefts reported 
to law enforcement agencies in the state of Maryland. This is a 10 
percent decrease when compared to the 18,486 Motor Vehicle Thefts 
reported in 1981. Motor Vehicle Theft makes up 8 percent of the 
Property Offense category and 7 percent of the Index Offenses. 

A monthly analysis for 1982 indicates that more motor ve- 
hicles were stolen during July than other months, and January showed 
the fewest being stolen. During 1981, August had the greatest fre- 
quency of Motor Vehicle Thefts and April showed the fewest number 
being stolen. 



Rate 

The Motor Vehicle Theft Rate of 392.0 per 100,000 inha- 
bitants is 10 percent lower than the rate of 433.8 per 100,000 
inhabitants for 1981 . 



Nature 

Automobiles accounted for 71.5 percent of the total number 
of vehicles stolen. Trucks and buses made up 12.3 percent and other 
motor vehicles comprised 15.2 percent of the total. 

66.2 percent of the stolen value was recovered. This is 
a 4 percent decrease when compared to the 68.8 percent of the stolen 
value recovered in 1981. 



74 



Clearances 

In 1982, law enforcement agencies cleared 15 percent of the 
Motor Vehicle Thefts, when compared to the 17 percent cleared in 1981. 

25 percent of the total clearances for Motor Vehicle Theft 
involved juveniles during 1982, compared to 30 percent in 1981. 

Persons Arrested 

2,944 persons were arrested in Maryland for Motor Vehicle 
Theft during 1982. This results in a 6 percent decrease when compared 
to the 3,135 arrests in 1981. 

Of the total persons arrested for Motor Vehicle Theft, 56 
percent were adults and 44 percent juveniles. 48 percent of the total 
were white, while 52 percent were black. 91 percent of the total per- 
sons arrested for Motor Vehicle Theft were males and 9 percent were 
females. 



75 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 

VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 





■ 5 Yr. Average 


2,000- 


- 




.I.. 1982 


1,900- 


- 


1,800- 


/\ 


1,700- 


/ Va 


1 ,600 " 


/ \ 


1,500- 


/^/"^\ ^ 




/ ^ A^ 


1,400- 


- /=/--■' '\ 








_\ / X 


1,300- 






^"vy 




/ 


1,200 - 


/ 




/ 




/ 


1,100 - 


-/ 

♦ 




1,000 - 


"■ 



JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



76 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE 
1982 



71.5% 



16.2% 




Auto 



Truck 



y.l other 
1979 1978 



Auto 


67,580 


11,948 


13,522 


13,490 


15,004 


13,616 


Truck 


9,736 


2,060 


1,940 


1,973 


2,079 


1,684 


Other 


14,590 


2,711 


3,024 


3,422 


3,134 


2,299 



77 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 



PERCENT OF VALUE RECOVERED 



1982 



66.2% 



33.8% 




I I Recovered 

RS^Sl Not Recovered 





5 Yr. 
Total 


1982 


1981 


1980 


1979 


1978 


1 


Stolen 


226 
Million 


52 
Million 


48 
Million 


44 
Million 


47 
Million 


35 
Million 


1 


Recovered 


155 
Mil 1 ion 


35 
Mi 11 ion 


33 
Mil 1 ion 


30 
Million 


32 

Million 


25 

Million 


f 
1 
















1 



78 



►!» 



soi» 




ARSON 



Arson is defined as any willful or malicious burning or 
attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, 
public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of 
another, etc. Only fires determined through investigation to have 
been willfully or maliciously set are classified as Arsons. Fires 
of suspicious or unknown origins are excluded. 

Arson offenses frequently occur in conjunction with other 
index crimes; e.g.. Breaking or Entering. However, according to UCR 
procedures in such multiple offense situations, only one crime is 
selected on the basis of an established hierarchy. For example, if 
a Breaking or Entering and Arson occurred at the same time and place, 
only the Breaking or Entering would be reported if the crimes were 
subjected to the hierarchy rule of reporting index offenses. This 
assumes that Arson would be listed subordinate to Breaking or Enter- 
ing in the hierarchy. Arson has been excluded from this hierarchi- 
cal procedure, and regardless of its occurrence in conjunction with 
another crime against property or crime against a person, the Arson 
is reported. 



Volume 

In 1982, there were 3,712 Arsons reported. This is a 5 
percent decrease when compared to the 3,923 Arsons reported in 1981. 

A monthly analysis indicates April had the highest fre- 
quency of occurrence, while January had the lowest. In 1981, March 
showed the highest frequency, while June showed the lowest. 

Nature 

The most frequent target of Arsons in 1982 were structures, 
comprising 50 percent of the total reported incidents. Mobile (motor 
vehicles, trailers, airplanes, boats, etc.) and other property (crops, 
timber, fences, signs, etc.) accounted for the remaining offenses with 
16 and 35 percent respectively. 

Residences comprised 56 percent of the structures at which 
Arsons were directed. 12 percent of all targeted structural property 
was uninhabited or abandoned at the time the Arson occurred. 

The total monetary value of property damaged, due to re- 
ported Arsons during 1982, was over 25 million dollars with an aver- 
age loss per incident of $6,944. Other commercial structures regis- 
tered the highest average loss at $33,697 per offense. 



80 



Clearances 

20 percent of all reported Arsons were cleared by arrest 
or exceptional means in 1982, compared to 25 percent in 1981. 

47 percent of the total clearances for Arson involved 
juveniles during 1982, compared to 51 percent in 1981. 



Persons Arrested 

In 1982, there were 706 persons arrested in Maryland for 
Arson. This results in a 17 percent decrease when compared to the 
847 arrests in 1981 . 

47 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 

Arson were adults, while 53 percent were juveniles. 68 percent of 

the total were white and 32 percent were black. 86 percent of the 

total were males, while the remaining 14 percent were females. 



81 



ARSON 

VOLUME BY MONTH 
1982 









1981 






700- 




MMMM 


1982 






650- 


- 










600- 


- 










550- 


- 










500- 


- 


r' 


W 






450- 




/ 1 
/ 1 
/ 1 
/ 1 


\ \ 
\ \ 






400- 


. 


\ \ 










\ \ 




^\ 






/ 1 


\ \ 




/ \ 


350- 


- 


/ 1 
/ 1 


\\ 




^^A 






^ 1 


V 


- 




300- 
250- 


- 


y^ 1 

1 
1 

1 


>/ 


\ 
\ 

\ 

« 


200- 













JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



82 



ARSON 



DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF PROPERTY 1982 



CLASSIFICATION 


NUMBER 

OF 
OFFENSES 


PERCENT 

OF 
DISTRIB. 


AVERAGE 

VALUES 

(DOLLARS) 


PERCENT 
CLEARED 


TOTAL STRUCTURAL 


1 


,861 


50.1% 


$ 12,941 


26% 


Single Occupancy Residen- 
tial 
Other Residential 




710 
329 


19.1% 
8.9% 


11,225 
4,821 


29% 
22% 


Storage 




189 


5.1% 


15,337 


19% 


Industrial /Manufacturing 




33 


.9% 


24,715 


3% 


Other Commercial 




225 


6.1% 


33,697 


20% 


Community/Public 




307 


8.3% 


9,486 


36% 


All Other Structure 




68 


1.8% 


4,688 


9% 


TOTAL MOBILE 




574 


15.5% 


$ 2,597 


12% 


Motor Vehicles 




507 


13.7% 


2,061 


12% 


Other Mobile Property 




67 


1.8% 


6,658 


13% 



OTHER 



1,277 



34.4% 



158 



14% 



TOTAL 



3,712 



a 00.0% 



$ 6,944 



20% 



*Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding. 



83 



INDEX OFFENSE DATA 



The tables contained within this section were designed to 
facilitate quick reference of statistical crime information relative 
to the different reporting areas of the State of flaryland. 

The tables are broken down by Regions. Within each Region 
information is listed in County name sequence and is further detailed 
to show the activity experienced by individual police agencies. The 
general identifying descriptions which indicate the reporting areas 
are listed and defined as follows: 

Region Total - This line indicates the total activity of 

all the Counties within the indicated Region, 

County Total - This line indicates the total activity of 
all reporting Agencies within the indicated 
County. 

Sheriff - This line indicates the total activity 

reported by Sheriff's Offices. This is to 
include activi.ty which may have occurred 
within the corporate limits of towns in 
that County. 

County Police 

Departments - This line indicates the total activity 

reported by County Police Departments. 

This is to include activity which may 

have occurred within the corporate limits 

of towns in that County. 

State Police - This line indicates the total activity 

reported by all State Police installations 
within the indicated reporting area. 
This is to include activity which may 
have occurred within the corporate limits 
of towns in that County. 

Municipal 

Police 

Departments - This line indicates the total activity 
reported by the individually specified 
police department to include only those 
crimes which were handled by that depart- 
ment. 



85 



INDEX OFFENSE DATA (Cont'd) 

The five Regions used in the Maryland Uniform Crime Report- 
ing Program consist of the following: 

Region I - Eastern Shore 

Caroline County 
Cecil County 
Dorchester County 
Kent County 
Queen Anne's County 
Somerset County 
Talbot County 
Wicomico County 
Worcester County 

Region II - Southern Maryland 

Calvert County 
Charles County 
St. Mary's County 

Region III - Western Maryland 

Allegany County 
Carroll County 
Frederick County 
Garrett County 
Washington County 

Region IV - Washington Metropolitan Region 

Montgomery County 
Prince George's County 

Region V - Baltimore Metropolitan Region 

Baltimore City 
Anne Arundel County 
Baltimore County 
Harford County 
Howard County 

The tabulations in this section indicate the volume of Crime 
in Maryland. The measure used is a Crime Index consisting of seven 
offenses which are counted as they become known to the law enforcement 
agencies. Crime classifications used in the Index are: Murder and 
Nonnegligent Manslaughter, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, 
Breaking or Entering, Larceny-Theft, and Motor Vehicle Theft*. 

*Arson figures included are not computed in the total offenses or 
crime rates. 



86 



INDEX OFFENSE DATA (Cont'd) 

Each heading contained in this report is defined below: 

Population: Estimated population of the State, 

Regions, and Counties. This informa- 
tion, representative of 1982, was 
provided by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. 



Total Offenses 



Total Cleared: 



This is the sum total of the seven 
Index Offenses. 

The sum total of the seven Index 
Offenses cleared. 



Percent Cleared: The percentage of Index Offenses 
cleared by arrest or exceptional 
means. The mathematical formula 
may be expressed as follows: 



Percent Cleared 



Crime Rate 



Example : 



= Total Index Offenses Cleared 

Total Actual Index Offenses Reported x 100 

This rate is the number of Index 
Offenses per 100,000 population. 
To compute a crime rate, you must 
divide the population by 100,000 
and divide the number of offenses 
by that answer. 

Population for Region I = 300,961 
Number of Index Offenses for Region I 
in 1980 = 14,522 



300,961 
100,000 

13,874 
3,010 



3,010 



= 4,609.3 



Crime Rate for Region I = 4,609.3 

Crime Rates for the individual agencies are not calculated in 
the following table because of overlapping jurisdiction in many cities 
of municipal, county and state law enforcement agencies. This table 
contains the offenses reported by the individual agencies with crime 
rates for the county and region totals. Arson offenses in this table 
are listed opposite the agency reporting the arson. In the Municipa- 
lity Table, the Arsons are listed in the municipality where they 
occurred. 



87 



u> ■- -o 



o o » 



r- o a- 



o^ a> (^ ■» 






Z O ',i 



* O O I -^ O o 



_1 ♦ >3- O^ 

< O * f<1 -1 

►-a « r- CO 

o -I » •• - 



^ » CO o >o 



o -• « 






o- J- :? 



L- CT- Z -ti- 



er CP 2 



Z *f Z 



88 



O O I » o o 



o o # iri J- 






-< o o 






o • 

o » 



o o I » o o 



-< o o » -»■ 



01*00 



001 » o o 



o o o » 000 



o ■» cr 00 -o 



o o o » -100 



< I- u « 



_i 2: 

< UJ 



ooo« — iOO« 
+ « o * 



cr C7- z # cr cr z 



t^ o^ z <■• (^ u- 2 



■* z u. 



Z Q. 



89 



o: * 



o o ♦ c o o 



O C I « O' o c< 



o » o r~- o 



_i z « 



v^ a- z « o> a> 



J' o> z 



uj » a. 



90 



o o o 



.0 o « o 



fM o • .o vn 



o _i _. 



• r- vj- 



o in o 



©♦fNJOOWCl-" 



o o ♦ 
• * 
o * 



O « <NJ 



-I -. o 



I- ». <r> in o » 

ct oc « + « 






o (O o ♦ CO c> cr 



O I- QC 



•»f\jco_,»o>oo 

♦ -T in . » in o . 

♦ CD « rsi 



< _i z » a> 



» t«- t^ m ♦ 
» in o « » 



to o * CO T3 o 

a- 2 ♦ cr o> z 



Z « O 2 ♦ 



■ U o 



Q. O 



o * o o 



» o o- 



a 3 < 

O C/ >- 

o u^ 



91 



■>■ 



O -I 00 



-H O O 



< LU 

D u. 



-. (^ _j 



(7- Z » 



92 



as <, o 



o o » o o 



(sj -o o 



-I o o 



o o o 



o .o o ■» 






IT. . « 






r^ o CO * 
-o in o * 



cc o » 



cr (7- Z 



a> (J- z 



Z I- uj 

LU Z t- 

oj r) < 

13 a I- 

O O 1/1 



93 



O O I 



o m o ■» 



♦ o- ir\ 



z a -I 



ml » 



cr CT- z 



o a- z 



o- j> ^ 



94 



O I • >-' o 



o o • 



< I 






O O I • o o 



» m o 



fM -O O « O O I 



o ♦ 

o • 
o » 



«00 I »00 I «-0-<ro 



O O I #00 



OO I »00 I itO-< 



O I * 



a • ifi 



r»i ♦ o o o 



o o o 



0- o >r 



a. u « 



< Q 
o K oc 
z O -J 



a o o 



-J- o- J> 
rr, a, • 

cr c^ ir\ 



CT> 00 -I ■ ♦ 



o o o 



3 Z 

a. o 
o — 



o ^ 



ffl © O ^* 3> QO o 

"> CT> Z » U> O^ Z 

-i -J <■»-.-< < 

X * I 



CO CO o 



0^ z » 



CD CC 

< I 






95 



rg in o 



O « '•<J O O 






O 1^1 ti i-i LT 1^ 



-« O O 



Q uj #00 



in(\jO*00 I *oo 



< Q 

O _I 



Z » CT> 



■O -1 ,0 

■c o • 

C 00 00 






* o 

» 00 CO 

2 o o 



CO « o 



z « J^ a- z 



u» o> .T 



« o 

« o. 
♦ 



z * < 



96 



-O -■ f> 



O o 



J3 u-1 sj- 



<t ir\ o 



o » 






<M sO O » O 



o o « o o 



00»— .-lOtf o 



o o I « o o 



.o♦^l■u^-">^0.00«^nHJ^^« ■Oor~»—a> 



o o r- 



< Q 
z a -I 



z » o r- 



X If X 't I 



-n (J •» 



Q. « 



97 



-- if\ o * 



C sO o 



,0 "N « 



■O « O 



-. O « « O O -li- 



< < « 



IN >o o «■ o o 



» o -^ 



•o ^ a- 





o 


Q 


4). 


i\j 


<M 


, 


« 


f\J 


IN 


, 


^ 


ac 










1 


« 






7 


o 


Q. 


U 










» 








3 






























CD 


IT. 




« 


rvj 


•O 


o 




< 


Q 




O 


cr> 




♦ 


-r 






o 




a 








rg 


♦ 




ir\ 




^ 


a 












» 








< 












1 
























» 








> 




lO 










* 








< 




^ 




00 


>r 


i/\ 


« 


m 


O 




s: 


< 












* 




IN) 












•J- 




O 


* 


!»• 


o 


o 




o 


u. 










* 


• 







o -I » ui cr 



^- -^ fNJ <f C7* o o 

■or- . « >)• r- • 
INI o iri » (sj 



U3 U3 .— 



.— o — 



-i rxj uj 
CT- U^ Z 



0^ CT- z » <7> O- Z 



0> CT- Z 



(X « O 



O a « 



98 



c> -• rt O o 



— I IT. ir> 



o in o 



O I » -o o o 



O I • 



tvi .}• o 



o » o -< I 



ir> « iri f*i o 



o •» (\i 



CO* I 

o » 

T3 » 

< Q ♦ tS) -^ • 

e t- OC « CT' r» o 

Z O -1 » <M 

< >- O ♦ I 

_l « 

< _( z « o (^ o> 

j: «i lu * ■o fM • 

»- U. » fr, -H >0 



o r- "N 



o o o 



»<r-ttsi*<xif-(j' 



u- (J> -z 



<3< CT- Z 



CO CO o 

a. <;. 2 

-. _. < 



CT O- 2 



VJ ♦ O 



CJC ac 

< UJ 
I X 



< < 

I t- 



99 



00 in in 



m .J- o 



m r- O 



o in ♦ 



in * <o in 



» CO >D 



i-r\ • « m -J- 

a- rsi ij in ,j- 



■» (M o • » O CD 

* 'J> o 00 » -< 



•1- to o 



O O I 



O CO o 



» o in 



rsi O O 



in m o * o 



■r m o 



o -1 * 



O O- •O * -" 



♦ « tn 



ir< CO « 



■» r- o "I 

« CO INI . 

o o- 



00 oo o 

a> a< z 



;* oocoo* oocoo 



» < u. 



100 






o » o o 



o^ o o 



00*0 






00 I * o c. 



ex a: 

Q. O 



O O O ♦ 4/> 



0«000«-<0-0 



•- OC » 

O -I • 



ej o o 



o » o o o 



m cj o 



•T a> o- * ooo» >oj-co 



o -1 a- » 



CO 00 o 
(/> (^ z 
-1 -1 < 



cr> u- z 



cr- (7- ;» 



♦ o 



» rt O 



101 



(^ « 



\~ 1, O C) 



* o o 



JC _J •» 



a: a. « 

a •« ^ 

Q. a » 



« -^ o 



rvj (Nj o 



< o « 



< _l 2: « fM r<1 O 






Q. CJ 
O ^ 
O. I- 



^^a•:»•tt(^v>^<■o^c^ 



:?: ♦ z z 



o — 



102 



o # o r- o » o 



l_) u- ♦ 



o «• cr 00 o It « 
o •» o » 



-• o O 



r\J I-- O 



O O I « o o 



to -1 (> * 



JJ ct 

ir a 
— a: 



OOI tt-lOOWOO 

» t o- 

« o « 

» o » 



o o o 



Ov-fftOCOJ-^Ot^ 



o o o 






< o 
a H- m 

Z O -J 



o o o 






CT> » -O O >!• « O 



>t o c 



cr (7- z 



<D TJ O 



-1 < » 



a> cr- z 



<D CO O » 03 ao o 

(7- o> 2t 6 j> a> z 



z ♦ o 



Z * Q. 



* <x a: 



103 



I- « -< >o <c 

u. «• CO in . 

> LU * -. _i ,■! 

^ I « -1 

i: I— « I 



o ♦ — o o 






O ♦ <N 



•t -o m 

-I o> 

<NI r\j oo 






O O « 



o o » o o 
o * 



* o o 



o -. o 



CO * 



.n -I (NJ ♦ O O 



o a 



104 



o ^ o • 



O r- 



o ♦ o o 



~J- r\j O 



-y rn O 



< O 
Z O -J 



< _l Z 



o u- z 



CT- a- H 



<J- Q^ ^. 



cr a< z 



►- « Q 



C£ » O ■ 



a; q: 

< I 



105 



<N — O * 



< X ♦ 



O' O . » -I 

m -I o. « 



O >;/ r~ 



lf\ r\i O ♦ 
• « 
o » 



CO » o o 



-TOO* o o 



>D O » O O 



Q. U 



O ♦ O O O 



O J- O 



< Q 
O -J 



rr, o -r 

-r o • 
0> nO -o 



00 o « o 



•o r- -J » ifi 00 o 



♦ o 00 cr 



3 Z 

a. □ 

o — 



106 



?r K- # 



« in m ^ 



< f- « 



* (NJ lO o 



in in o * c^ 



o o> O 



o in o * o o o 



< Q « 



u\ in I 



z » -o 



>j- o- sO » 



<j -1 •» -" 



-1- -■ o 



3 2 » 
Q. Q » 
O- » 



U> (7> Z 



00 TO O 

<^ O Z 



(T- CT- Z 



a' o^ z 



X z ►- 

I/) 3 < 

< O I- 

i O l/l 



^ « c 



107 



o » in ui + 



Ct UJ 

< X 



■ti — O 



in -f O 



<J> o o 






^ o o « o in 



-J -1 o 



O O O » in ro o 



o o o * -I ^ >o 



o o o 



-1 -. < 



M 00 O « to 

Cr> 0^ 2: « CT~ 

^ _< <£ « -■ 



3: u. 



UJ Q O. 
^ Q. 



108 



o • 



>D <7> ♦ 
on . « 

INJ O ♦ 



ij^ .C n o o 



o o ir\ » 



— o o 



— o o 



UJ » — o o • 

o » . « 

a. « o * 

:d « o ♦ 

s: * — » 



» o o 






o « o o o 



< o * 

I- QC » 

O -J * 

I- o « 



o -^ o 



-I z * 

< UJ * 

1- u. * 

o u. * 






(J> tr z 



Z « iJ- 'r 2 



c^ cr 12 



o> ^^ ^ « 



109 



-< rsj O * r<-. -J 



""* o O « rg fo o 



<\j o * o 

o ■> 
o ■* 



mo* 



o o I * -< t\i o 



O ro O 



a; Q. « o 



O in o 



O O I * o o 



o o 
a uj -J 

Q. o 



ifi r^ o 



c< cr 0- 



< Q » 
o 1- ex » 

Z U -I « 



O » U-N 



,1- m » a> o 



(\J -o * -• 



Q. O 



<7» O- Z 



l^ (^ Z 



00 00 o 



no 



<i t~ -> 9 

mo- • » 

o -o -" ♦ 

IN O I « 



c t^ ir\ 



00 o » J3 -. 



QL » 



1/. iNj -c « in _ o 
~1- or . » ryj _ . 

ro >0 ^ « <» 



O » ro i<i .O » 



O O » 



O O I » 



O («- (M 



t\J • « 



-J- >J- o 



o ♦ c^ r^ 



z ♦ t^ o -J 



a- -o » ir\ >»• o< 
m . « o in 

(Nj ♦ m in -1 



-I -I < 



111 






-4 c^ in 



a — >j- 



♦ o o 



>r o >}■ » 



O (\J o •«• o 



O !NJ I ■»• >o 



« o o 



>»• cr o » o o 
• ♦ 



O O I » o o 



O O I #00 



O O I ■» o o 



o « 
• « 

+ » 



o o o 



in (N o 



o o o 



-1 ,j- o 



a> 0> o « 
o ♦ 



O O O ♦ -J 



u> « -^ 



o< a> z ♦ 

-H -< < » 

I * 



(7> C> Z ♦ C 0> ^ 



CT> o- zr 



tr o> rr 



» o 

1- ♦ Q. 

z * 



Q. ♦ -• 



Q. * a 






112 



-TOO 



C in ,C fl- -o * 



•» o o 



00 rsj 
~0 sO 



* OCO«- ovf^o 






« •» r- 



< a 
Q I- a: 
Z O -J 



o o o It m 17- 



cr in * •o 



OOOS--I— iO» 0Or\jC-*rsi(\j 

+ »0^-<-l*OOO*'— 'f\i 



J3 T) « 



3 z 

a. o 



? o o * 



a> CT- 2 



O' (^ ^ 



C a- z 



o» a- z 



CT> o^ z 



_ -1 < 



O O Q- 



Z Z 1- 

~ 3 .1 

i O t- 



113 



t\l -I o 



o » o 



O O O * (M 



O O I » 



-1 o o « 



O ■» O o 



O O I i* O O I # o 



O ~t O It o o o 



o -4- o « o o o 



Z < OJ 

O 11- 
(- o 



(7> O- Z (f 'J> O- 

-I -I < ft -« _, 

X «• 



00 00 O * 00 CO o 

^ o^ z ^ ^ o^ ^ 

-< ~4 < » _l ^ < 

X « X 



114 



o in .-^ 
r~ o- -•■ 



•o o -• 









CC -I 

< < 






O- CT> o 



0*00 



* O <M O » 00 sO 



in « o o o « 



< Q 

?. a -J 



00*000 



•1^ in in -^ » nO CT» 
* .T r- aj » p~ -I 



O o ♦ i^ in o- 
« » o <D 
+ » o in o 



<y <3' -z. 



a- o z 



CT- o^ 2 



o< o z 

-. -1 < 



tr cr z » 



3 O Q. 



115 



CO o « 
^ o * 



in * o o 
in * 



a> o ^o 



a>-t» (SJ<\lco« -f rr. >o « 



nj J~- u> « O o 
in u^ . « 



o « o o 



IM INI O 



O ♦ O C' 



a: a. 
o < 
a a: 



OOI«OOI«OOI«OOI 






-1 » O 



* o o 



o o 
a: a: 



oo « -1 _ o 



o o o 



< o 
Q I- q: 
z O -J 



o o o « 



m » -I ^ ec # 



o » -" 



o o o 



(7> ON z * cr (7- z 



(7- o> 2 



a- a- z 



a) 00 o 
IT' O- Z 



< z 

a o 

z — 



oc * a. 



116 



<r o i> >r> o 



o <o « sO m -o 



U-. r- <j 



■o in yO 



o « 
• • 

o « 



-0.0 



< o 
Q t- a: 
z O -I 



o> iri p- ♦ 






o o * 



O LL « 



* -t 

« CO 



-^ -H < 



ON (J. z 



CO 00 o 

O C7> Z 

_l _. < 



c> o> z 



117 



J- « o> 



u. « o 



■O -1- sO 



•o * -t- 



— I ,0 >0 » ro -1 -1 
•O •)■ tM * O- ir I 



IN o 



CI ISI ^ » >0 <NJ (NJ 



O 1/1 



in m 
<M rg 






in CT- ♦ ro (M o 
-■ . * O o • 

m « -< -I -< 



0< <NJ « -J- 



o « o o 



o » in 



<o o « o o 



2 Q 



♦ 000 



000 



INJ -I O « f«- 00 <\J 

-O IN • ♦ P» O^ • 

<N <N in ♦ (N — 1 -O 



.0 >>■ » o o o 



rn 'O f^^ * ^ a* (N 

i>- _. . « 00 f- 

rri c^ ro ♦ -3 0-0 

-- 1 * -u -o 



000 



o< o< z 



C7> J- 2- 



U- C^ 2 



Do ij * Z 



» no. 



118 



<l » o 



4 < 



O- vj- o 



O (> 3 



^^ o « 3 o o 



< o 

h- a: 

a -1 



o tr o « o o o 



o * 

• » 

o * 

o « 



o o o 



•T in -1 



♦ CT> o> 2 



(7- 0> Z 



Z He => 



q: » o z 



< o 

3 -J 

< a. 



119 



O I * 



,_ « O O O ■!» 

O Q «■ * 5 

U. i£ * » 

_j » o o o * 

in ♦ * 

_, 2 « O O O » 



cr o> z 



120 



MUNICIPALITY CRIME RATES 



Crime Rates for the individual cities are calculated in 
the following table. The rates for many cities are based on com- 
bined figures of municipal, county and state Law Enforcement Agencies 
due to overlapping jurisdictions.* 



Crime Rates for individual cities in Prince George's County are not 
calculated in this publication because of the overlapping jurisdic- 
tions. At this time Prince George's County Police Department is unable 
to furnish the Maryland UCR Program with a breakdown of crime for the 
municipalities in their jurisdiction. Therefore, to have computed a 
crime rate for many cities in Prince George's County would have given 
a misleading picture of the crime problem in those areas. 



121 



CAROLINE COUNTY 



Denton 


1981 


8,250.0 


165 





1 




15 


35 


105 


2 


(2) 




1982 


7,350.0 


147 










3 


50 


93 





(0) 




% Chanqe 


-10.9 


-10.9 




-100.0 


-85. 


-30.0 


-42.9 


-11.4 


-100.0 


(-100.0) 


Federal sburq 


1981 


4,400.0 


88 










7 


26 


48 


6 


(2) 




1982 


5,300.0 


106 










10 


24 


69 


1 


(2) 



HOO.O +42.9 



1982 
% Chanqe 



3,538.5 
3,461.5 



1982 
% Chanqe 



y. Chanqe 



5,000.0 

2,200.0 

-56.0 



(1) 

(3) 

(+200.0) 



% Chanqe 



7,000.0 

6,777.8 

-3.2 



(4) 

(1) 

(-75.0) 



CECIL COUNTY 



1982 
Change 



2,200.0 

3,000.0 

+ 36.4 



5,142.9 

2,428.6 

-52.8 



Chesapeake City 



3,111.1 

2,333.3 

-25.0 



28 

21 

-25.0 



(5) 

(0) 

(-100.0) 



1982 
% Chanqe 



8,151.5 
7,969.7 



2 



(6) 

(5) 

i-16.7) 



1932 
Chanqe 



-45.5 



1982 
% Chanqe 



3,900.0 
3,900.0 

0_ 

6,571.4 
3,571.4 
-45.7 
4,181.8 
3,818.2 



5 (1) 

6 (0) 
+20.0 (-100.0) 

1 (1) 

2 (1) 
100.0 (0) 

1 (4) 

3 (1) 
?00.0 (-75) 



DORCHESTER COUNTY 



1982 
% Change 



1982 
t Change 



9,201.7 

»2.1 

3,411.8 

3,294.1 



15 



(10) 
(8) 



Chestcrtown 


1981 


5,911.8 


201 










2 


14 


28 


151 








1982 


6,147.1 


209 













14 


31 


162 


2 


(2) 




% Change 


♦4.0 


♦ 4.0 


. 




. 


♦100.0 





♦ 10.7 


♦ 7.3 


-65.7 


(-50.0) 


Rock Hall 


1981 


9,600.0 


144 










1 


11 


38 


88 


6 






1982 


9.266.7 


139 













5 


43 


89 


2 






% Change 


-3.5 


-3.5 








-100.0 


-54.5 


♦ 13.2 


♦1.1 


-66.7 




QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY 


Centreville 


1981 


4.450.0 


89 







2 





1 


22 


60 


4 


(1) 




1982 


5,750.0 


115 










1 


8 


41 


64 


I 


(1) 




% Change _ _ 


♦29.2 


+29.2 




-100 


.0 




♦700.0 


♦86.4 


♦6.7 


-75.0 


(0) 


SOMERSET COUNTY 


Crisfield 


1981 


5.733.3 


172 


1 




1 





5 


51 


102 


12 


(2) 




1982 


3.733.3 


112 










3 


3 


22 


81 


3 


(2) 




■; Change 


-34.9 


-34.9 


-100.0 


-100 


.0 




-40.0 


-56.9 


-20.6 


-75.0 


(0) 


Princess Anne 


1981 


9.400.0 


141 













2 


42 


89 


8 


(2) 




1982 


9,333.3 


140 













7 


33 


94 


6 


(3) 




% Change 


-0.7 


-0.7 










♦250.0 


-21.4 


+5.5 


-25.0 


(+50.0) 



TALBOT COUNTY 



1981 


7,839.5 


635 


1982 


7,024.7 


569 


% Change 


-10.4 


-10.4 


1981 


500.0 


4 


1982 


250.0 


2 


% Change 


-50.0 


-50.0 


1981 


4.846.2 


63 


1982 


4.615.4 


60 



21 
■32.3 



105 
-13.2 



(6) 

(2) 

(-66.7) 



3 

■75.0 



6 
-25.0 



ICOMICO COUNTY 



5.500.0 
4,165.7 

-24.2 
6.518.5 
4,259.3 

-34.7 
4,285.7 
2.571.4 

-40.0 



39 
-20.4 



-66.7 



(1) 

(0) 

(-100.0) 



5 (2) 

6 (3) 
♦20.0 (+50.0) 

(1) 

(1) 



WORCESTER COUNTY 



Ocean Pines 



CALVERT COUtlTY 



Chesapeake Beach 



North Beach 



CHARLES COUNTY 



is 



10,957.8 
11,115.7 



1,819 
1,895 
<-1.2 



12.5 



4,400.0 

2,600.0 

-40.9 



1981 

1982 

% Change 



3,636.4 
4,000.0 



1981 



48,355.6 
42,977.8 



2,176 
1,934 



5.307.7 
6,076.9 



1982 
Change 



5,972.2 
6,694.4 



2,409.1 

1,545.5 

-35.8 



1982 

t Change 



,714.3 
142.9 
-91.7 



2 
-91.7 



1982 
Change 



5 
+25.0 



1981 

1982 

1 Change 



4,571.4 
3,928.6 



1981 

1982 

Change 



,272 67 (11) 

,270 67 (17) 

-0.2 (+54.5) 



+33.3 -100. 



10 3 (1) 

7 (0) 

-30.0 -100.0 (-100.0) 



,348 
,226 



5 
+400.0 



(1) 

(0) 

(-100.0) 



(24) 

(16) 

(-33.3 j_ 



(4) 

(0) 

(-100.0) 



47 4 (1) 

35 1 (0) 

-25.5 -75.0 (-100.0) 

203 4 (6) 

153 (3) 



-24.6 -100. 



ST. MARY'S COUNTY 



Leonardtown 



1981 2,866.7 

1982 2,600.0 
% Change -9.3 



5 
-61.5 



ALLEGANY COUNTY 



1981 

1982 

Change 



; Change 



Pa, 

4,867.4 

4,381.1 

-10.0 



1.285 
1,161 



16 

\2 

• 25.0 



16 

25 

♦56.3 



Ji. 

206 
186 



40 (20) 

19 (20) 

■JLl Li. 



4.012.8 
3.614.4 



Change 



8 (4) 

7 (5) 

-12.5 (*25.0) 



1982 
% Change 



-100.0 




100.0 



X Change 



4,666.7 

2,666.7 

-42.9 



2 
-50.0 



5 
-37.5 



1981 

1982 

t Change 



Western port 



1981 



2,714.3 
2,285.7 



1 (1) 

4 (2) 

♦300.0 (tlOO.a) 



CARROLL COUNTY 



1,473.7 


28 


3,052.6 


58 


♦ 107.1 


♦ 107.1 


880.0 


22 


400.0 


10 


-54.5 


-54.5 


1,125.0 


9 


1,375.0 


11 


+22.2 


+22.2 



2 
12 

♦500.0 



(2) 

(0) 

(-100.0) 



FREDERICK COUNTY 



1982 2,222.2 60 
Change +22.4 +22.4 -100.0 

1981 2.222.2 20 

1982 777.8 7 

Change -65.0 -65.0 ^ 

1981 4.933.3 444 

1982 4,788.9 431 

Change -2J -2,^9 +100 

1981 2,978.7 140 

1982 2,617.0 123 

Change -12.1 -12.1 -100 

Carroll, Frederick and Howard Counties, for purposes 



(0) 

(;) 
(-) 

(1) 

(0) 

- (-100.0) 

2 (2) 

2 (0) 

(-100.0) 
2 (1) 

1 (0) 
-50.0 (-100.0) 

(0) 

(3) 

z LI. 

14 (1) 

12 (0) 

-14.3 (-100.0) 

4 (1) 

1 (0) 
-75.0 (-100.0) 



is report, we have shown the data for the entire city 



GARRETT COUNTY 



Mt. Lake Park 



WASHINGTON COUNTY 



1981 


500.0 


1982 


1,500.0 


% Change 


+200.0 


1981 


4,875.0 


1982 


3,437.5 


% Change 


-29.5 


1981 


9,596.4 


1982 


9,240.0 



I Change 
1981 
1982 

% Change 
1981 
1982 

% Change 
1981 
1982 

» Change 



1982 
Change 



-30.4 
1,500.0 
1,750.0 

-H6.7 
1,200.0 
1,466.7 

-22.2 
1,954.6 
1,772.7 



9,400.0 
2,200.0 

-76.6 
5,250.0 
3,500.0 

-33.3 
5,200.0 
3,150.0 

-39.4 



-13.3 
3,000.0 
1,000.0 
-66.7 
818.2 
727.3 



2,639 

2,541 



296 
t37.7 



463 
-23.8 



2 

-81.8 



21 



-75. 



1,658 92 (17) 

1,619 78 (12) 

-2.4 -15.2 (-29.4) 



(1) 
(0) 

-100.0) 
(4) 
(0) 

■100.0) 
(0) 

(1) 

Li_ 

(0) 

(1) 
(-) 



-44.7 -42.9 ( - 



-40.0 -33.3 



5a 



1 Change -9.0 

1981 2.894.7 

1982 3,736.8 
i Change *29.-\ 



1981 



714.3 
1982 1,285.7 
Change ♦80.0 

1981 2.000.0 

1982 3,000.0 
Change ♦SO.O 

1981 5.631.6 

1982 2,894.7 
Change -48.5 



16 

24 

♦50.0 



ss 



H 






520 1 , 309 

373 1.253 

-28.3 -4.3 



2 7 

J ♦75.0 

2 14 

6 15 

.0 ♦7.1 



59 



-28.8 -40. 



(47) 
(58) 

(1) 
0) 

LL 

(1) 

(0) 

(-100.0) 

(2) 

(0) 

(-100.0) 

(3) 

(0) 

(-100.0) 



•MONTGOMERY COUNTY 



Chevy Chase IV 



Chevy Chase Village 



% Change 
1981 
1982 

% Change 
1981 
1982 

% Change 
1981 
1982 

"■ Change 
1981 
1982 

% Change 
1981 



% Change 



% Change 



***PR. GEORGE'S COUNTY 

•Breakdown by Municipal i 

**A1 though Takoma Park li 

Montgomery County. 

•••Because the Pr. George' 

for the municipalities 



1,586.2 
1,551.7 
-2.2 
3,428.6 
2.761.9 

-19.4 
7,075.8 
5,852.3 

-17.3 
2,333.3 
2.750.0 

♦ 17.9 
10,333.3 
9,055.6 

-12.4 
1,852.9 
2.264.7 

♦22.2 
5,995.5 
6,090.5 
♦1.6 
1,454.6 
1,454.6 


6,797.5 
5,251.5 

-22.7 







22 



2 7 

-30.0 



3 
♦50.0 



20 
-25.9 



26 


45 


♦85.7 


♦ 18.4 


527 


1,786 


530 


1,815 


♦0.6 


+1.6 



report, we have shown the data 



the entire city 



5 



is 3S g S S ^^ 



BALTIMORE CITY 



Baltimore City 


1981 


9,920.0 


79.102 


228 


566 


10,737 


6,258 


18,604 


37.378 


5.331 


(819) 




1982 


9,296.8 


74,207 


227 


553 


9.357 


6,592 


16.501 


36.516 


4.461 


(673) 




% Change 


-6.3 


-6.2 


-0.4 


-2.3 


-12.9 


♦5.3 


-11.3 


-2.3 


-16.3 


(17.8) 


ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY 


Annapolis 


1981 


8,710.3 


2.796 


3 


9 


100 


216 


604 


1.710 


154 


(141) 




1982 


9,903.4 


3.179 


3 


9 


103 


311 


674 


1.955 


124 


(146) 




% Change 


tl3.7 


+13.7 








+3.0 


+44.0 


+11.6 


+14.3 


-19.5 


(+3.5) 


HARFORD COUNTY 


Aberdeen 


1981 


10,111 .1 


1.183 


2 




47 


58 


324 


711 


34 


(16) 




1982 


9,717.5 


1.137 


1 




45 


89 


266 


691 


41 


(6) 




% Change 


-3.9 


-3.9 


-50.0 


-42.9 


-4.3 


+53.4 


-17.9 


-2.8 


+20.6 


(62.5) 


Bel Air 


1981 


6,240.5 


493 







10 


19 


77 


366 


18 


(5) 




1982 


5,670.9 


448 


1 




5 


12 


66 


345 


18 


(5) 




% Change 


-9.1 


-9.1 


. 


-66.7 


-50.0 


-36.8 


-14.3 


-5.7 





(0) 


Havre de Grace 


1981 


5,600.0 


504 







13 


24 


145 


313 


5 


(11) 




1982 


6,888.9 


620 








8 


23 


174 


395 


20 


(5) 




_%Chanqe_ __ 


+23.0 


+23.0 


. 


-100.0 


-38.5 


-4.2 


+20.0 


+26.2 


+300.0 


(-54.5) 



MARYLAND 
ARREST DATA 



ARREST DATA 



The Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program requires the 
submission of monthly reports of data concerning persons arrested in 
the state. A record of total arrest activity for criminal acts in 
both Part I and Part II crime classes is received from 132 county, 
state and municipal law enforcement agencies, according to the age, 
sex and race of persons arrested. Traffic arrests, except Driving 
While Intoxicated, are not reported. A total of 214,286 arrests for 
Part I and Part II criminal offenses were reported during 1982. In 
comparison to 1981, there were 200,379 arrests which results in a 7 
percent increase. Based on 1982 population estimates, there were 
5,024.3 arrests per 100,000 population in Maryland. The arrest rate 
for 1981 was 4,702.6, resulting in a 7 percent increase in arrest 
rate. 

A person is counted on the monthly arrest report each time 
he is arrested. It should be noted that a person may be arrested 
several times during a given month for the same or different offenses. 
This occurs frequently in a crime such as Disorderly Conduct. A juve- 
nile is counted as "arrested" when the circumstances are such that if 
he or she were an adult an arrest would be counted, or when police or 
other official action beyond a mere interview, warning or admonish- 
ment is taken. 

Arrest figures do not indicate the number of individuals 
arrested or summonsed since, as has been pointed out, one person may 
be arrested several times during the month. However, arrest infor- 
mation is useful in measuring the extent of law enforcement activi- 
ties in a given geographic area, as well as providing an index for 
measuring the involvement in criminal acts, by the age, sex and race 
of perpetrators. 

26 percent of all reported arrests during 1982 were for 
Crime Index Offenses (Murder, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated 
Assault, Breaking or Entering, Larceny-Theft, and Motor Vehicle 
Theft). Analysis of Crime Index Arrest Data indicates that Larceny 
comprised the highest percentage of all arrests for Crime Index 
crimes, with 50 percent of the total. The same trend for Larceny 
occurred in 1981 with 50 percent of the total. The Drug Abuse, 
Driving under the Influence, Disorderly Conduct, and All Other 
Offense categories continue to record the highest percentage of 
arrests for Part II Offenses. These offenses accounted for 68 per- 
cent of the total Part II Offenses in 1982. 



Violent Crime 

Arrests for crimes of violence (Murder, Forcible Rape, 
Robbery, and Aggravated Assault) on a statewide basis amounted to 



131 



23 percent of arrests for Crime Index Offenses and 6 percent of the 
total arrests in 1982, as compared to 21 percent of arrests for the 
Crime Index Offenses and 6 percent of total arrests in 1981. A fur- 
ther evaluation indicates that arrests for Robbery and Aggravated 
Assault were the most frequent, representing 39 and 51 percent re- 
spectively of the total arrests for Violent Crimes. 



Property Crime 

Property Crime arrests (Breaking or Entering, Larceny- 
Theft and Motor Vehicle Theft) comprised 77 percent of all arrests 
for Crime Index Offenses and 20 percent of the total arrests in 1982, 
as compared to 79 percent of all arrests for Crime Index Offenses 
and 24 percent of the total arrests in 1981. 

The highest percentage of Property Crime arrests, 65 per- 
cent, occurred in the Larceny category, the same as in 1981, with 
64 percent of the total. 



Drug Abuse Violation Arrests 

Information pertaining to Drug Abuse Violation arrests is 
collected according to specific drug categories and whether the 
arrest was for Sale or Manufacture or Possession of the specific 
drug. During 1982, a total of 17,418 arrests for Drug Abuse Law 
Violations was reported, as compared to 1981 with 15,756 arrests, 
resulting in an 11 percent increase. 

Evaluation of data reported discloses that 38 percent of 
all persons arrested for Drug Abuse Violations were under 21 years 
of age. 44 percent of all persons arrested for Drug Abuse Viola- 
tions were under 21 in 1981. 17 percent of the Drug Abuse Viola- 
tion arrests were for persons under the age of 18 as compared to 
23 percent in 1981 . 

Analysis of individual categories showed that the highest 
percentage of arrests, 69 percent, involved marijuana, as compared 
to 73 percent in 1981. 78 percent of the total Drug Abuse Arrests 
were for Possession while 22 percent were for Sale or Manufacture. 
In 1981, 77 percent were for Possession while 23 percent were for 
Sale or Manufacture. Possession of marijuana represented 58 per- 
cent of the total Drug Abuse arrests, as compared to 1981, with 
61 percent of the total . 



Gambling Arrests 

A total of 574 Gambling arrests were reported during 
1982. In 1981, 620 persons were arrested for Gambling violations 
resulting in a 7 percent decrease. 



132 



Arrests for Gambling offenses amounted to .3 percent of all 
reported Part I and Part II arrests, the same as in 1981. Persons 
under the age of 18 made up 9 percent of all Gambling arrests compared 
to 1 5 percent in 1 981 . 



133 



ARRESTS 

JUVENILE 
1982 



7,500- 


_ 5 Yr. Average 




-—1982 


7,000- 


- 


6,500- 


- 


6,000- 


- 


5,500- 


- 


5,000- 


/■^^^^^V 


4,500- 


/ ^"^^V''^\ 


.4,000 - 

3,500- 

3,000 - 


'-J ■-'--< 


2,500 - 





JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



134 



ARRESTS 



ADULT 
1982 



18,000- 


■iHBiBai 


5 Yr. 
1982 


Average 




17,000- 


- 








16,000- 


- 








15,000- 
14,000- 


- 






A 


13,000- 


- 






/ --v' 


12,000- 
11,000- 








^^^-\^ 


10,000- 


- / 








9,000- 


-^ 








8,000- 


- 









JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 



135 



ARRESTS 

ADULT VS. JUVENILE 



1982 



79. 7X 



20.3?. 






5 Yr. 
Total 


1982 


1981 


1980 


1979 


1978 


Juvenile 


257,187 


43,472 


48,298 


51,343 


55,337 


58,737 


Adult 


700,487 


170,814 


152,081 


133,909 


125,405 


118,278 



136 



ARRESTS 



DRUG ABUSE VIOLATIONS PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE 



1982 



69.2% 




5 Yr. 
Total 



1981 1930 



Cocaine 
or Opium 


9,279 


3,163 


2,316 


1,674 


1,195 


931 


Marijuana 


54,024 


12,047 


11,578 


10,821 


9,344 


10,234 


Synthetic 


3,021 


756 


556 


536 


622 


541 


Other 


6,279 


1,452 


1,296 


1,131 


1,173 


1 ,227 



137 



ARRESTS 



GAMBLING VIOLATIONS 
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE 
1982 



63.9% 




.\\';:v:| Bookmaki ng 
Numbers 

Other 
1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 



Bookmaking 


383 


37 


27 


54 


95 


170 


Numbers 


1,051 


170 


141 


177 


248 


315 


Other 


2,423 


367 


452 


489 


665 


450 



138 



ARREST RATES 



FIVE YEAR TREND 



1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 



MURDER 
RAPE 



7.5 



8.9 



9.3 11.6 10.1 



21.2 22.3 20.7 21.6 22.0 



ROBBERY 



121.2 120.4 118.4 126.8 117.0 



AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 



138.6 135.5 138.7 131.6 152.1 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 



315.4 334.6 333.6 336.1 287.0 



LARCENY 



644.2 695.7 715.6 716.5 666.7 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 



89.1 94.0 84.1 



73.6 69.0 



CRIME INDEX TOTALS 



1,337.2 1,411.4 1,421.1 1,417.6 1,324.4 



Arrest rates are a measure of law enforcement activity in response to crime 
The above table represents the Crime Index arrest rates per 100,000 inhabi- 
tants in Maryland. 



139 



Forcible Rape 

Robbery 

Felonious Assault 

Breaking or Entering 

Larceny- Theft 

Motor Vehicle Theft 

Other Assaults 

Arson 

Forgery S Counterfeiting 

Fraud 



928 


4,775 


5,534 


11,528 


21,527 


2.693 


15.940 



3,505 


2,975 


6,236 


5,968 


2,282 


15,930 


1,416 


1,510 


0,529 


8,156 



Stolen Property; Buying, 
Receiving, Possessing 



Weapons; Carrying, 
Possessing, etc. 



Drug Abuse Violati 



Driving under the Influence 

Liquor Laws 

Disorderly Conduct 

Vagrancy 

All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) 



537 


81 


262 


351 


5.108 


564 


4,084 


1,571 


3.582 


280 


1,681 


2,159 


345 


550 


476 


410 


1,366 


108 


976 


489 


14.606 


2,812 


9,206 


8,146 


490 


84 


168 


405 


1,207 


125 


750 


578 


27.552 


3,379 


25,689 


5,109 


5.179 


762 


4,339 


1,572 


9.398 


1.460 


6,028 


4,756 


593 


172 


214 


547 


42.732 


6,102 


27.492 


21.155 


75 


10 


55 


30 


469 


124 


332 


260 


1,256 


1,623 


2,205 


652 



ARRESTS 



Murder i Nonnegligent 

Manslaughter 7 

Manslaughter by 

Negligence 

Forcihle Rape 3 15 36 

Robbery 8 111 380 

Felonious Assault 4? 105 255 ; 

Breaking or Entering 112 474 1,302 1,1 

Larceny- Theft 273 1,036 2.321 1,819 1,957 2,084 9,490 1,851 1,641 1,363 1,215 1,090 

Motor Vehicle Theft 14 33 212 

Other Assaults 74 285 567 

Arson 56 65 110 

Forgery 8 Counterfeiting 1 5 10 

Fraud 3 21 13 24 32 93 44 70 101 112 160 131 

Embezzlement 1 5 11 1 7 1 3 20 20 10 15 16 

Stolen Property; Buying, 

Receiving, Possessing 1 20 46 50 59 74 250 41 22 36 22 20 21 

Vandalism 160 449 647 442 496 458 2,652 360 303 280 207 184 166 

3 36 132 186 227 262 846 243 200 198 197 168 171 



,210 


1,277 


5,388 


1,038 


,957 


2,084 


9,490 


1,851 


346 


401 


1,290 


273 


627 


789 


2,821 


85, 


48 


26 


372 




32 


40 


105 





Drug Abuse Violations 
Gambling 



Driving under the Influence 



Disorderly Conduct 



agrancy 



323 


679 


257 


399 


2 


6 



2,940 


1,306 


1,288 


1.170 


1,220 


51 


25 


28 


15 


18 


8 


9 


22 


42 


58 


509 


977 


1,297 


1.434 


1,439 


2.127 


473 


418 


354 


282 


1.581 


619 


692 


626 


592 



20 



All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) 141 473 1,264 1,080 1,228 1,306 5.492 2.058 2,406 2,517 2,543 2,434 2,171 

Suspicion 2 6 9 14 6 12 49 4 3 4 3 5 1 



342 2.879 



9,309 8,097 9,977 11,540 43,472 11,307 11,484 10,747 10.447 



A R R t S 



Murder 1 Nonnegligent 
Manslaughter 



Robbery 

Felonious Assault 
Breaking or Entering 
Larceny- Theft 
Motor Vehicle Theft 
Other Assaults 

Forgery & Counterfeitin 
Fraud 



30-34 35-39 



45-49 50-54 55-59 fiO-64 



681 


440 


302 


207 


144 


109 


669 


318 


160 


77 


59 


25 


,501 


1.322 


737 


462 


356 


260 


145 


86 


32 


12 


10 




,251 


1.483 


980 


598 


362 


265 


48 


30 


17 


16 


16 




227 


139 


48 


37 


20 


15 


772 


586 


290 


179 


115 


63 


31 


20 


17 


7 


,, 
















50-64 


65 t 

_Over_ 


Adult 
ToUl 


TOTAL 


3 




381 


425 







56 


57 


4 




754 


939 


' 




3.170 


4,988 


53 


61 


5.132 


6.518 


10 




6.851 


12.239 


142 


156 


18.943 


28.433 


2 




1,654 


2.944 


116 


112 


15.989 


18,810 


5 




334 


706 


^ 




1.242 


1.347 


24 


20 


3,800 


3.893 


2 




239 


256 


1 




368 


618 


15 


14 


3.020 


5,672 


33 


24 


3.016 


3.862 



Sex Offenses (Except Forcible Rape, 
Prostitution i Commercialized Vice) 



Drug Abuse Violations 



Driving under the Influence 

Liquor Laws 

Disorderly Conduct 

Vagrancy 

All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) 

Suspicion 

Curfew and Loitering 



64 


281 


260 


190 


137 


73 


38 


20 


7 


7 


1,324 


1.332 


1,514 


5.783 


4.273 


3.191 


2.351 


1,799 


1,431 


1,006 


536 


414 


30,422 


30.931 


192 


617 


397 


210 


144 


83 


94 


57 


31 


36 


3,814 


5.941 


526 


1.661 


1.102 


683 


495 


350 


321 


248 


159 


108 


9,277 


10,858 


45 


165 


108 


57 


24 


17 


14 


9 


6 


4 


745 


765 


2,267 


8,948 


6,395 


4,141 


2,703 


1,699 


1,303 


810 


532 


415 


43.342 


48,834 


3 


4 


4 


1 


1 





1 


, 


1 





36 


85 



GRAND TOTAL 



9,161 34,700 23.127 14,443 9,268 6,060 4,620 3,123 



1,753 1,480 170,814 



TABLES FOR ARRESTS BY REGION, COUNTY, AND 

AGENCY ARE CONTAINED IN THE SUPPLEMENT REPORT 

"MARYLAND ARREST DATA" 



144 



LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

EMPLOYEE DATA 



LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS KILLED 

Three law enforcement officers were killed in Maryland during 
1982 while in the line of duty. One officer was feloniously killed and 
two were accidentally killed. The following summaries are based on infor- 
mation provided by the respective agencies and by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation who conducts in-depth investigations into these tragic in- 
cidents in which law enforcement officers have made the supreme sacrifice 
in the performance of their duties. 

JANUARY 26, 1982 

A 25 year old trooper with the Maryland State Police died as 
a result of being struck by a tractor-trailer. The trooper had stopped 
an automobile for a traffic violation and as he stood on the shoulder 
of the highway, shielded from traffic by his patrol car, an out of con- 
trol tractor-trailer ran off the road, crushed the patrol car and pro- 
pelled it into the victim. 

FEBRUARY 8, 1982 

Following the robbery of a jewelry store in a local shopping 
mall, an off-duty Pr. George's County Police Department officer, who 
had four years of law enforcement service, was slain. At approximately 
6:00 P.M. on February 8, three masked males entered the jewelry store, 
produced guns, and announced a holdup. A passer-by observed the situa- 
tion and cried out to other people in the mall that a robbery was occur- 
ring. Hearing this, the 28 year old officer ran toward the store where 
he confronted one of the masked robbers fleeing the store. After identi- 
fying himself as a police officer and ordering the male to halt, the 
officer was fired upon by a second masked robber who had exited the 
store and was standing behing him. The first robber also began firing, 
and the officer was caught in the cross fire. During the ensuing gun 
battle, the officer was killed, and two passers-by and one robber was 
wounded. Taking the victim's service weapon, the robbers fled the scene. 
Subsequently, five males, aged 27, 21, and 20, and two aged 24, were 
arrested and charged in connection with the robbery and the officer's 
murder. The victim officer died as a result of 9-millimeter and .38- 
caliber handgun wounds to the back and chest. 

DECEMBER 8, 1982 

A 41 year old Pr. George's County police corporal died as a 
result of being struck by an automobile as he was issuing a ticket to 
the driver of a van he had pulled over on the Capital Beltway. He was 
a 19 year veteran of the force. 



147 



LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSAULTED 



The following information is based on a detailed monthly 
collection of data in the Uniform Crime Reporting System reqarding 
the problem of assaults on local, county and state law enforcement 
officers. The large number of reported assaults on sworn officers 
is in part due to a prevalent attitude of disrespect for law enforce- 
ment in certain elements of our society. 

A total of 3,876 law enforcement officers in Mary and were 
victims of assault in the line of duty during 1982, as compared to 
3,513 assaults during 1981, resulting in a 10 percent increase. 

The rate of assaults on law enforcement officers for the 
state was 34 assaults for ewery 100 sworn officers, as compared to 
32 assaults per 100 sworn officers in 1981. 

Physical force was used in 87 percent of all assaults on 
police officers. 

The greatest number of assaults (1,431) or 37 percent 
occurred while officers were responding to disturbance calls (family 
disputes, man with a gun, etc.). 35 percent of assaults on police 
officers occurred between 10:00 P.M. and 2:00 A.M. 

A total of 3,838 assaults on law enforcement officers were 
cleared during 1982, amounting to a 99 percent clearance raze, the 
same as in 1981 . 



149 



POLICE ASSAULTED 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE 
1982 



86.7% 




1982 1981 



I I Physical For 
1979 1978 



Firearm 


662 


144 


150 


132 


133 


103 


Knife 


507 


101 


84 


102 


117 


103 


Other 


1,414 


270 


248 


300 


253 


343 


Physical 
Force 


14,621 


3,361 


3,031 


2,918 


2,836 


2,475 



150 



< 

CO 
CO 

< 

LU 

o 






on 


"^ 


CTi 


ct-J 


U3 


to 


LjJcI 


<JD 




=^t— 




» 


o 


UD 


«* 



1 — LD 

CO <NJ 

<* O 



r- (JD 

I— uo 

CO 00 



*« 


*« 


ST? 


*« 


a^ 


en 


^ 


cvj 


cr. 


vo 



CM .— r— 





LT) 








oZS 














1— 






















OO 








CD 




00 










LU 








■z. 




00 






00 




Cd 








I-. c/0 




LU 






00 




ai 








1- q: 




OL 






LU 




cC 








CC LU 


uo 


CD 






cc: 


oo 










o 2: 


■zz 







Q 


CD 


_I 


q: 




C/O 




Q- o 


LL. o 


q: 




LU 





_J 


LU 




1— 




oo oo 


o (yo 


D- 




CD 


q: 


«=c 


31 




1—1 




^ HH 


a: 




q: 


^ 


a. 


O C_) 


1— 




r3 




cC q: 


2: LU 


^ 


LU 


et 




1— 


o 




oo 




q; d- 


O- 




Q 


q: 


:^ 


LU 






c; 




1— 






CC 


LU 


1 — 1 


CD O 


CJ3 




rD 




LL. 


h- 00 


00 





Q 




^ 2: 


^ 


cn 


D. 




-o 


<: => 


LU 


00 




00 






LU 






cu 


CD 


1 1 




>- 


LU 


Q 03 


1— 


re 


O 


oo 


^ ^ 




CC 


Q 


-J 


t— 1 


2: a: 


a. 


^— 




D- 


K-. Q 


1— CJ 


ear 




-J 


q; 


o =) 


s: 


o 


Lj_ 


O 


_J O 


00 1-1 


_1 


-J 


<c 


LU 


D- 1— 


LU 




Ll. 


1— 


Q h- 


LU D_ 


CD 




1— 


CQ 


oo oo 


1— 


1 


-=C 


oo 


^ OO 


>• 00 


q; 


> 


^ 


CO 


LU 1— 1 


h- 


_i 


a: 




<: =3 


^ =) 


=3 


1 — 1 


LU 






151 



POLICE ASSAULTED 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF INJURIES VS. NON-INJURIES 

1982 



82.9°/ 




17.1' 



Personal In: 



□ No Personal 
Injury 





5 Yr. 
Total 


1982 


1981 


1980 


1979 


1978 


No Personal 
Injury 


13,686 


3,212 


2,855 


2,736 


2,600 


2,283 


Personal 
Injury 


3,518 


664 


658 


716 


739 


741 



152 



POLICE ASSAULTED 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TIME OF DAY 
1982 



PERCENT 

22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 



- 






'-^yyyyyZyyy^^ 


- 


J^yyyyyyyr'yyy^^ 




/|||:||||||||^ 




^y llllllll 


iiil 


- -^ lllllll 




6 8 10 

to to to 

8 10 12 

(A.M.) 


12 2 4 6 8 10 

to ' to to to to to 

2 4 6 8 10 12 

(P.M.) 


12 2 4 
to to to 
2 4 6 
(A.M.) 



153 



uj a. 



in»0(Tio(\jOo» a> 



I Q. 

H < 
O HI 



O IM O O O O 



o» oooooo 



o o o o o 



» o o o 



•» O O O -I 



o o o 



O 3 

< 

_l W1 



154 



o o -. 



a 3 
I z 



a. z 
uj o 
X a 
t- < 
o ui 



o o o 



o o o 



» o o o 



o o o 



o o o 



o o c 



O <M ♦ -< * o o 



u o 

li- -J 

O 13 



o o o 



oo« o*ooo» 



O (Nj m 



«• u. o 



155 



lA » .* 



0« ^0« OOt\j-Hrr|.» tr» O-OO 



Q. 3 

-5 

I z 



o o o 



o o o 



O O O O (M 



-1 o o 



ooo* o« oo 



o « o o o 



o o o o o 



156 



X Q. 



O O -I 



o o o 



o o o 



O 3 



157 



O O <N O O O 



a. => 
X z 



« * 



c< « o 



o o o o 



O O O -1 



o o o o 



O O O O —i 



o o o o o 



o o o 



Z h- _) 

a 2 -J 



158 



Q. Z> 

I Z 



O O I- 



Z -- < I- 



159 



-H a> — o o 



-< -■ o m o 



-I O ITI 



ir\ >o o o> 



o o o 



o o o o o -< o 



-■ooooooooo 



o o o o 



I- _l Q >- 



o — 
I- ^ 



t- >- o 
t- ^ t: 

O — Q 



160 



< o 
o < 



a. o 

I z 



a- o o 



o o o -1 » a< 



— o o 



o o o 



o o o o 



O 3 

* < 

• < 1/) 



161 



LU O 
X Q. 



O O « O « 



l_> o 

u. _i 
O 3 



162 



a 3 

T ^ 



a. z 

w en 
I a 



163 



AW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



Police Employee Data 

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program in Maryland incorpo- 
rates the collection of pertinent data relating to the police of 
the State. Information regarding police employee strength is dis- 
cussed in this section. 

This information is submitted by county, municipal, and 
state law enforcement agencies and compiled on an annual basis. 
Specific information concerning the number of law enforcement emplo- 
yees reflects the status as of October 31, 1982. 



Law Enforcement Employee Rates 

In 1982, the average number of full-time law enforcement 
employees (county, municipal and state) including civilian employees, 
amounted to 3.3 for each 1,000 inhabitants of the State. The rate 
based on sworn personnel only (excluding civilians), amounted to 
2.7 per 1,000 population. In 1981, the average number of full-time 
law enforcement employees amounted to 3.2 for each 1,000 inhabitants 
and 2.6 sworn personnel per 1,000 inhabitants of the State. 

The ratio of law enforcement employees per 1,000 popula- 
tion in any given area or municipality is influenced by a number 
of factors, much the same as the crime rate. The determination of 
law enforcement strength for a given county or municipality is based 
on factors such as population density, size and character of the 
community, geographic location, proximity to metropolitan areas, 
and other conditions which exist in the area generating the need for 
law enforcement services. Employee rates also differ among agencies 
since, in particular, there is a wide variation in the responsibili- 
ties and level of activity within various law enforcement agencies. 
The information in this section relates to reported police employee 
strength and should not be interpreted as recommended strength for 
any area. 



Civilian Employees 

The personnel of each law enforcement agency differ as to 
the demands and responsibilities placed before them. Many police 
officers are fully occupied with clerical tasks and are not free to 
perform active police duties. Some police administrators use civi- 
lians in this capacity, thus freeing the sworn personnel for actual 
police related services. 

As of October 31, 1982, 2,909 or 20 percent of the total 
number of police employees in Maryland were civilians. 



165 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE RATES 



REGION I 



NUMBER *RATE 



983 


3.3 


58 


2.5 


209 


3.4 


80 


2.6 


37 


2.2 


55 


2.1 


52 


2.7 


104 


4.0 


191 


2.9 


197 


6.4 



Carol ine County 
Cecil County 
Dorchester County 
Kent County 
Queen Anne' s County 
Somerset County 
Talbot County 
Wicomico County 
Worcester County 



REGION II 347 2.0 

Calvert County 65 1 .9 

Charles County 185 2.5 

St. Mary's County 97 1.6 



REGION III 913 2.1 

Allegany County 212 2.6 

Carroll County 174 1.8 

Frederick County 259 2.2 

Garrett County 44 1.6 

Washington County 224 2.0 



REGION IV 3,082 2.5 

Montgomery County 1,243 2.1 

Pr. George's County 1,839 2.7 



REGION V 8,039 3.8 

Baltimore City 3,859 4.8 

Anne Arundel County 1,016 2.7 

Baltimore County 2,477 3.7 

Harford County 317 2.2 

Howard County 370 3.1 

PARKS 856 

STATE TOTAL 14,220 3J_ 

*Rate per 1,000 population 

166 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBl R NUMBER 
TOTAL SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



REGION I 


983 


762 


221 


83) 


144 


CAROLINE COUNTY 


58 


38 


20 


54 


4 


Denton 


4 


4 





4 





Federalsburg 


5 


5 





5 





Greensboro 


2 


2 





2 





Preston 


2 


2 





9 





Ridgely 


2 


2 





2 





Sheriff's Dept. 


30 


10 


20 


27 


3 


State Police 


13 


13 





12 


1 


CECIL COUNTY 


209 


167 


42 


182 


27 


Chesapeake City 


1 


1 





1 





Elkton 


19 


15 


4 


15 


4 


North East 


5 


4 


1 


4 


1 


Port Deposit 


3 


3 





3 





Rising Sun 


4 


3 


1 


3 


1 


Sheriff's Dept. 


44 


36 


8 


39 


5 


State Police 


133 


105 


28 


117 


16 



DORCHESTER COUNTY 80 61 19 73 



Cambridge 
Hurlock 

Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


39 

4 

24 

13 


31 

4 

13 

13 


8 



11 




34 

4 

23 

12 


5 


1 
1 


KENT COUNTY 


37 


29 


8 


32 


5 


Chestertown 
Rock Hall 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


9 

3 

17 

8 


7 

3 

11 

8 


2 


6 



7 

3 

14 

8 


2 

3 



QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY 


55 


43 


12 


46 


9 


Centreville 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


7 
12 
36 


7 

8 

28 



4 
8 


7 
12 
27 




9 



167 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



TOTAL 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



SOMERSET COUNTY 



52 



46 



44 



Oris field 


11 


6 


5 


8 


3 


Princess Anne 


5 


5 





5 





UMES 


11 


10 


1 


9 


2 


Sheriff's Dept. 


12 


12 





10 


2 


State Police 


13 


13 





12 


1 



TALBOT COUNTY 



104 



79 



25 



85 



19 



Easton 


27 


22 


5 


22 


5 


Oxford 


2 


2 





2 





St. Michaels 


6 


5 


1 


4 


2 


Sheriff's Dept. 


17 


12 


5 


14 


3 


State Police 


52 


38 


14 


43 


9 



WICOMICO COUNTY 



191 



152 



39 



170 



21 



Del mar 


4 


3 


1 


3 


1 


Fruitland 


5 


4 


1 


4 


1 


Salisbury 


57 


48 


9 


50 


7 


Salisbury St. College 


15 


14 


1 


13 


2 


Sheriff's Dept. 


21 


18 


3 


19 


2 


State Police 


89 


65 


24 


81 


8 



WORCESTER COUNTY 



197 



147 



50 



153 



44 



Berlin 


9 


6 


3 


6 


3 


Ocean City 


96 


75 


21 


78 


18 


Ocean Pines 


14 


10 


4 


10 


4 


Pocomoke City 


14 


11 


3 


11 


3 


Snow Hill 


7 


6 


1 


6 


1 


Sheriff's Dept. 


22 


15 


7 


16 


6 


State Police 


35 


24 


11 


26 


9 


GION II 


347 


289 


58 


308 


39 


CALVERT COUNTY 


65 


62 


3 


61 


4 


North Beach 


5 


5 





5 





Sheriff's Dept. 


21 


19 


2 


19 


2 


State Police 


39 


38 


1 


37 


2 



168 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



TOTAL 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



CHARLES COUNTY 



85 



153 



32 



162 



23 



La Plata 


1 


1 





1 





Sheriff's Dept. 


108 


97 


11 


96 


12 


State Police 


76 


55 


21 


65 


11 


ST. MARY'S COUNTY 


97 


74 


23 


85 


12 


St. Mary's College 


9 


9 





8 


1 


Sheriff's Dept. 


43 


31 


12 


38 


5 


State Police 


45 


34 


n 


39 


6 


GION III 


913 


717 


196 


785 


128 


ALLEGANY COUNTY 


212 


174 


38 


183 


29 


Cumberland 


62 


57 


5 


60 


2 


Frostburg 


18 


14 


4 


16 


2 


Frostburg St. College 


18 


17 


1 


14 


4 


Lonaconing 


2 


2 





2 





Luke 


2 


2 





2 





Westernport 


8 


8 





5 


3 


Sheriff's Dept. 


33 


22 


11 


23 


10 


State's Att. Office 


7 


2 


5 


4 


3 


State Police 


62 


50 


12 


57 


5 



CARROLL COUNTY 



174 



138 



36 



155 



19 



Hampstead 


2 


2 





2 





Manchester 


2 


2 





2 





New Windsor 


1 


1 





1 





Sykesville 


5 


5 





5 





Taneytown 


5 


4 


1 


4 


1 


Westminster 


24 


19 


5 


19 


5 


Sheriff's Dept. 


39 


23 


16 


35 


4 


State Police 


96 


82 


14 


87 


9 



FREDERICK COUNTY 



259 



189 



70 



213 



46 



Brunswick 
Emmitsburg 
Frederick 
Thurmont 



11 


9 


2 


10 


1 


3 


3 





3 





82 


69 


13 


65 


17 


4 


4 





4 






169 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



TOTAL 



NUMBER NUMBER 
SWORN CIVILIAN 



NUMBER 
MALE 



NUMBER 
FEMALE 



FREDERICK COUNTY 
(Cont'd) 



Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 



66 
93 



31 
73 



35 
20 



47 
84 



GARRETT COUNTY 



44 



43 



41 



Grants ville 


1 


1 





1 





Oakland 


5 


5 





5 





Sheriff's Dept. 


21 


20 


1 


18 


3 


State Police 


17 


17 





17 





WASHINGTON COUNTY 


224 


173 


51 


193 


31 


Boonsboro 


2 


2 





2 





Hagerstown 


107 


90 


17 


91 


16 


Hancock 


4 


4 





4 





Smithsburg 


1 


1 





1 





Williamsport 


1 


1 





1 





Sheriff's Dept. 


52 


30 


22 


44 


8 


State Police 


59 


47 


12 


52 


7 


REGION IV 


3,082 


2,396 


686 


2,403 


679 


MONTGOMERY COUNTY 


1,243 


1,011 


232 


979 


264 


Chevy Chase 


10 


9 


1 


8 


2 


Gaithersburg 


7 


7 





6 


1 


Md. Nat. Cap. Park 


63 


51 


12 


54 


9 


Montgomery County 


972 


783 


189 


763 


209 


Rockville 


39 


29 


10 


28 


11 


Takoma Park 


35 


29 


6 


25 


9 


Sheriff's Dept. 


73 


67 


6 


57 


16 


State Police 


44 


36 


8 


37 


7 



PR. GEORGE'S COUNTY 



1,839 



1,385 



454 



1,424 



415 



Berwyn Heights 


1 


1 





1 





Bladensburg 


19 


14 


5 


13 


6 


Bowie State College 


15 


11 


4 


11 


4 


Capitol Heights 


1 


1 





1 





Cheverly 


8 


8 





8 





Colmar Manor 


4 


3 


1 


3 


1 


Cottage City 


5 


4 


1 


5 






170 



LAW ENFORCCriENT EMPLOYEE DATA 







NUMBER 


NUMBER 


NUMBER 


NUMBER 




TOTAL 


SWORN 


CIVILIAN 


MALE 


FEMALE 


PR. GEORGE'S COUNTY 












(Cont'd) 












District Heights 


8 


7 


1 


7 


1 


Edmonston 


1 


1 





1 





Fairmount Heights 


1 


1 





1 





Forest Heights 


6 


5 


1 


4 


2 


Glenarden 


3 


3 





3 





Greenbelt 


33 


27 


6 


29 


4 


Hyattsville 


29 


21 


8 


21 


8 


Landover Hills 


1 


1 





1 





Laurel 


39 


27 


12 


30 


9 


Md. Nat. Cap. Park 


65 


55 


10 


52 


13 


Morningside 


3 


3 





3 





Mt. Rainier 


12 


9 


3 


10 


2 


Pr. George's Co. 


1,211 


884 


327 


918 


293 


Ri verdale 


10 


6 


4 


7 


3 


Univ. of Md.-C.P. 


75 


61 


14 


59 


16 


University Park 


4 


4 





4 





Upper Marlboro 


1 


1 





1 





Sheriff's Dept. 


158 


126 


32 


122 


36 


State Police 


126 


101 


25 


109 


17 


REGION V 


8,039 


6,621 


1,418 


6,677 


1,362 


BALTIMORE CITY 


3,859 


3,307 


552 


3,271 


588 


Baltimore City 


3,581 


3,056 


525 


3,027 


554 


Coppin St. Univ. 


17 


16 


1 


14 


3 


Morgan State Univ. 


29 


27 


2 


24 


5 


Univ. of Balto. 


17 


9 


8 


12 


5 


UMAB 


73 


65 


8 


63 


10 


Sheriff's Dept. 


130 


123 


7 


120 


10 


State Police 


12 


11 


1 


11 


1 



ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY 



1,016 



771 



245 



849 



167 



Annapolis 


128 


100 


28 


94 


34 


Anne Arundel Co. 


621 


444 


177 


532 


89 


Sheriff's Dept. 


22 


22 





19 


3 


State Police 


245 


205 


40 


204 


41 



BALTIMORE COUNTY 



2,477 



1,981 



496 



2,003 



474 



Baltimore Co. 


1,550 


1,377 


173 


1,354 


196 


Md. Port Admin. 


80 


76 


4 


68 


12 


Sparrows Point 


136 


126 


10 


125 


11 



171 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
TOTAL SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



28 


22 


6 


19 


9 


25 


19 


6 


21 


4 


40 


36 


4 


33 


7 


618 


325 


293 


383 


235 



BALTIMORE COUNTY 
(Cont'd) 

Towson State Univ. 

UMBO 

Sheriff's Dept. 

State Police 



HARFORD COUNTY 317 285 32 257 60 

Aberdeen 
Bel Air 

Havre de Grace 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 

HOWARD COUNTY 

Howard County 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 



PARKS & TOLLS 856 526 330 747 109 

Md. Alcohol Tax Enf. 
Md. Park Service 
Md. Toll Facilities 
Natural Resources 
State Fire Marshal 



MARYLAND TOTALS 14,220 11,311 2,909 11,759 2,461 



37 


30 


7 


31 


6 


29 


23 


6 


22 


7 


24 


19 


5 


18 


6 


147 


147 





119 


28 


80 


66 


14 


67 


13 


370 


277 


93 


297 


73 


238 


192 


46 


189 


49 


22 


19 


3 


17 


5 


110 


66 


44 


91 


19 



12 


11 


1 


11 


1 


389 


111 


278 


339 


50 


202 


184 


18 


167 


35 


208 


188 


20 


194 


14 


45 


32 


13 


36 


9 



172 



PC 



..:IJI.ATF 



P 42391 04/05/83